Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
79. +1000 Third Way politicians seek divided government, not majorities.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 06:47 AM
Apr 2015

Both corporate parties prefer closely divided government most of the time. The goal is to continue the corporate agenda, and they will use both parties (now both purchased by the same corporate interests) to accomplish that goal.

[font size=3] Corporatists depend on the illusion of gridlock to sustain the excuse of being unable to stop the corporate agenda. A party with strong majorities cannot continue to claim to be unable to respond to the will of the People.


[font color=red]***************************************************************************************
We misunderstand our corporate politicians in 2015 when we assume that their goal is always to win. That was the old system, democracy. In the new system, oligarchy, the goal is to use the two parties you own in whatever way will best protect and advance the corporate agenda. [/font size]
***************************************************************************************[/font color]

The con game is very familiar by now:

Perhaps the administration is not really all that into having progressive majorities in Congress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938

For so long we mysteriously fell short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/


The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.



Closely divided government gives both parties an excuse for failing to serve the will of voters. Right now corporate Democrats have been in power for nearly eight years. Eight years of defending, entrenching, legalizing, and expanding the most malignant policies of the Bush administration have opened too many eyes to the fact that the predatory corporate agenda continues no matter which party is elected. That awareness is dangerous for the PTB. That's why we now see both corporate parties setting us up for a Republican win next time:


How corporatists on both sides are working hard to alienate the Democratic base and elect a Republican
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6508212

From the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign of the midterms, to the relentless stream of deliberately baiting, blaming messaging like this, I don't think we have *ever* seen such a transparent and relentless campaign by corporate politicians and their mouthpieces to depress Democratic enthusiasm for the party and suppress Democratic turnout.

Corporate politicians want a Republican in next time. It is becoming increasingly clear that the plan of corporatists in both parties is for Hillary to lose. This is why:

IMO we're being set up for a Republican win by both sides.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6229978

...
Corporatists on both sides are working hard to set the stage to elect a Republican next time, because eight years of corporate Democratic rule have opened too many eyes to the fact that the predatory corporate agenda continues no matter which party is elected. That awareness is dangerous for the PTB.

They NEED to alienate the base and get a Republican in office for awhile so that corporate Democrats can pretend to be against corporate/warmongering/police state policies again. They hope that the country will forget all this silly talk about oligarchy and go back to believing that the only thing wrong in Washington is that a Republican is in office and we need to rally to get the Third Way Democrats back in again.

They are TRYING to demoralize and alienate the base. We saw it in the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign. We see it in the gratuitous attacks on traditional Democrats every single day by supposed Hillary supporters. Corporatists in both parties are doing everything possible to enable a Republican win....The truth is that we live in a post-partisan, united oligarchy now, not a democracy...


[font color=red]***************************************************************************************
[font size=3]We misunderstand our corporate politicians in 2015 when we assume that their goal is always to win. That was the old system, democracy. In the new system, oligarchy, the goal is to use the two parties you own in whatever way will best protect and advance the corporate agenda. [/font size]
***************************************************************************************[/font color]


Red vs. Blue = Oligarchy Theater for the masses.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.
Selling off swaths of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling? Both parties support it.
Drilling along the Atlantic Coast? Both parties support it.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Hillary because I think she has the best chance to bring the house and senate to the Democrats. hrmjustin Apr 2015 #1
This is precisely why I voted for Clinton. joshcryer Apr 2015 #19
Sanders can't get elected Tommy2Tone Apr 2015 #24
What Nader did was true democracy in action. cui bono Apr 2015 #54
Nader had the right to run but he was a contributing factor to Gore's loss. hrmjustin Apr 2015 #93
Exactly my point n/t Tommy2Tone Apr 2015 #96
Thanks One of the 99 Apr 2015 #111
The system is more to blame for our loss then... cascadiance Apr 2015 #127
Nader was not the only reason but he was a major factor. hrmjustin Apr 2015 #129
But focusing on him to blame makes it harder to fix the system properly... cascadiance Apr 2015 #131
I am sorry but he had the right to run but his running helped cause Bush and he deserves to be hrmjustin Apr 2015 #132
No, you're blaming continues to keep a corrupt system in place! cascadiance Apr 2015 #133
I have no problem with third parties but they are not immune from criticism. hrmjustin Apr 2015 #134
But criticize their policies, not that simply running helps the Republicans... cascadiance Apr 2015 #136
With respect I think he can be criticized for running as well. hrmjustin Apr 2015 #137
You are criticizing democracy then too... cascadiance Apr 2015 #138
Damn i hate myself! hrmjustin Apr 2015 #139
Post 151. MADem Apr 2015 #152
Agree 100 percent. I don't look on Nader as a positive force after 2000. hrmjustin Apr 2015 #153
No. He should not be blamed as he was the only determining factor that was democracy in action. cui bono Apr 2015 #149
+1 - That's my point. cui bono Apr 2015 #150
Agree..The SCOTUS stole this election n/t Tommy2Tone Apr 2015 #144
Yes, taking all that GOP money for his campaign was "true democracy in action....?" MADem Apr 2015 #151
I think Sanders could win if he was the nominee. joshcryer Apr 2015 #56
Sanders can't be the nominee since he is not a Democrat Tommy2Tone Apr 2015 #95
There's nothing in our system STOPPING him from being a Democrat to do so... cascadiance Apr 2015 #126
I have no issue if he runs as a Democrat Tommy2Tone Apr 2015 #143
I think he's given strong indications that this is the way he'd do it. cascadiance Apr 2015 #146
Sanders=Nader only if he runs against the Democrat, which is highly unlikely. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #57
Why do you... onyourleft Apr 2015 #82
I think that many here underestimate the capability of either Sanders or Warren winning... cascadiance Apr 2015 #135
So we have to settle for eight more years of center-right nothingness Ken Burch Apr 2015 #65
You need Congress to do anything. joshcryer Apr 2015 #66
I know we need Congress. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #69
Where has Clinton run away? joshcryer Apr 2015 #70
All Clinton has to do is not fuck anything up DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #88
You're assuming she wants to regain the House and the Senate. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #38
Really? Was she president in the 90's? hrmjustin Apr 2015 #39
Marionette... Agschmid Apr 2015 #40
No they weren't. joshcryer Apr 2015 #53
Because they almost never said the words "we need a Democratic Congress" Ken Burch Apr 2015 #59
Have you watched it? joshcryer Apr 2015 #60
He COULD have flipped the House back to us in '96, but he didn't even try. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #61
He ran on welfare, Ken. joshcryer Apr 2015 #62
welfare could have been reformed WITHOUT punishing the poor. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #63
How? He ran on cuts. joshcryer Apr 2015 #64
He ran on "ending welfare as we know it"-not on throwing poor people to the wolves. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #67
You are simply wrong. joshcryer Apr 2015 #68
He could at least have shown the stones Harry Truman showed when he vetoed Taft-Hartley. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #72
Sure. joshcryer Apr 2015 #73
+1000 Third Way politicians seek divided government, not majorities. woo me with science Apr 2015 #79
I think she has the worst chance for coattails. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #83
Well we disagree. hrmjustin Apr 2015 #89
Agreed. LuvNewcastle Apr 2015 #162
Hillary tied for 2nd! nt Logical Apr 2015 #94
Turn things around from what? zappaman Apr 2015 #2
I tried to be gracious. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #10
Voted for Bernie because as you said Elizabeth is not running. jwirr Apr 2015 #3
Bernie isn't a Democrat currently so... Agschmid Apr 2015 #4
I want to pick Liz who isn't running or Bernie but I'm ignoring Manny so I can't vote in the poll. Autumn Apr 2015 #5
Me too. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #6
Like an ignore Manny group? Awesome! May I be co host host? Autumn Apr 2015 #9
We can co-host. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #29
I can get behind that, the promise not to post Autumn Apr 2015 #92
If you're ignoring Manny, how is it you're able to post on this thread? n/t. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #71
It's a special new DU feature. I can say I ignore Manny and still give him crap Autumn Apr 2015 #87
No...but I would be interested in a "Ignore the Ignore MannyGoldstein group". n/t. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #141
It's not up and running yet but in the meantime you can still join us in the Elizabeth Warren Autumn Apr 2015 #142
I'll give those a look. Cheers. n/t. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #147
Im not ignoring Manny and I still can't vote in the poll. JaneyVee Apr 2015 #155
No one is restricted from voting. You can chose Other if you like no one listed in the poll Autumn Apr 2015 #156
No, it won't let me vote because poster must have me on ignore. JaneyVee Apr 2015 #157
The time has run out on the poll that's why the options to vote are un-clickable. Autumn Apr 2015 #158
Ah, ok. I learn something new about DU every day. JaneyVee Apr 2015 #159
It took me a bit to find it. I looked twice for your name to see if you had voted Autumn Apr 2015 #160
http://www.dumblittleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Change.png blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #7
How in the world can anyone seriously vote for Hillary in this poll? Reter Apr 2015 #8
You voted for the one person who isn't a democrat, just FYI. Agschmid Apr 2015 #12
Ironic how he's the one acting most like a Democrat though.... truebrit71 Apr 2015 #28
Well done, and very true. nt haikugal Apr 2015 #55
Yes, indeed. n/t onyourleft Apr 2015 #84
There's no ideal/perfect Democrat that everyone can agree on YoungDemCA Apr 2015 #122
Except he isn't... Agschmid Apr 2015 #130
If you are not being facetious and/or pointing out Manny messed that up treestar Apr 2015 #112
I was pointing out that it seemed like a flawed poll. Agschmid Apr 2015 #114
She has actual supporters treestar Apr 2015 #110
Elizabeth Warren Aerows Apr 2015 #11
+6.02e23 nt MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #41
Give me a hug Aerows Apr 2015 #42
I'm still waiting for an answer on what we can do about TPP BainsBane Apr 2015 #13
Face it: MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #14
Because I was hoping you'd have ideas BainsBane Apr 2015 #16
Nah, sorry. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #20
So what does progressive reform consist of BainsBane Apr 2015 #22
Good point. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #26
AFL-CIO Day of Action to Stop Fast Track- Today, April 18 2015.....Do something about it!!!! Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #90
Thank you! nt BainsBane Apr 2015 #119
What can you do about anything, BainsBane? Scootaloo Apr 2015 #34
I understand that BainsBane Apr 2015 #36
This is a big Day of Action on Fast Track, there are events all over the country today. Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #91
How would a president turn things around? BainsBane Apr 2015 #15
IIRC, Warren herself did the killing MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #21
Nope, she just voted the administration that killed him into office. BainsBane Apr 2015 #23
I really have no idea. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #27
Nobody knows where to draw the line treestar Apr 2015 #76
Good point MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #98
Hillary never voted for his appointing POTUS treestar Apr 2015 #99
I really don't know what to say MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #101
Hillary is a murderer of Gaddafi? treestar Apr 2015 #103
I'm curious: did you vote for John Kerry? MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #108
Yes. treestar Apr 2015 #109
You're right. Kissinger is only an accessory to murder. But, there's no statute of limitations leveymg Apr 2015 #115
What is the second oldest Democratic government? treestar Apr 2015 #116
They are still doing it treestar Apr 2015 #77
Kick for Bernie. 840high Apr 2015 #17
I'm of the opinion that anyone these days who would make a great POTUS for the 99% ... Fumesucker Apr 2015 #18
Love that the person winning isn't a democrat... Agschmid Apr 2015 #25
And yet Bernie acts more like a Democrat than the rest.... truebrit71 Apr 2015 #31
I agree it's interesting, but realistically he is acting just like he is... Agschmid Apr 2015 #33
Wait, he's just acting that way? truebrit71 Apr 2015 #35
Where did I say that? Agschmid Apr 2015 #37
Sorta how Hillary is talking "just like she is" a socialist/populist. Autumn Apr 2015 #105
Good post. Agschmid Apr 2015 #107
My fault. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #32
Don't apologize Aerows Apr 2015 #45
I suck less? MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #48
To be fair I don't think you suck at all... Agschmid Apr 2015 #49
Nah. I think you win! KMOD Apr 2015 #52
Are you determined Aerows Apr 2015 #44
I do on a daily basis. Agschmid Apr 2015 #50
so now you are being open about treestar Apr 2015 #75
Try again... Agschmid Apr 2015 #97
You said that you loved that the winner of this poll was not a Democrat treestar Apr 2015 #100
Lol. Agschmid Apr 2015 #106
It's going to take more than the Presidency to turn things around. winter is coming Apr 2015 #30
And yet . . . Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #58
Elizabeth Warren Aerows Apr 2015 #43
Any of them would make a huge difference KMOD Apr 2015 #46
Well said! hrmjustin Apr 2015 #47
Yup! Agschmid Apr 2015 #51
None without Congress treestar Apr 2015 #74
Correct answer ... and it is instructive that the OP did not include it. JoePhilly Apr 2015 #102
Or the desire for a dictator who will be obedient to their own purist demands YoungDemCA Apr 2015 #123
How much does Bernie owe Corporations for his Campaigns ? orpupilofnature57 Apr 2015 #78
Bernie fights for Democratic principles better than most card-carrying Dems... polichick Apr 2015 #80
I'm just surprised that President Kucinich hasn't fixed everything... SidDithers Apr 2015 #81
It's always said a person lost for not being progressive enough treestar Apr 2015 #104
If your 1% allies, the MSM, would have allowed Kucinich some press, maybe he would have. Zorra Apr 2015 #117
He's too busy collecting his check from his good buddy Rupert, and playing the MADem Apr 2015 #154
I'll pass rock Apr 2015 #85
No one ann--- Apr 2015 #86
I voted, "did not wish to select any of the options provided" ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #113
You mean we can't have a STRONG LEADER that can "turn things around?" YoungDemCA Apr 2015 #120
I'll go a step further ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #124
Good point. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #125
Did you read the part about ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #128
As I've noted in my thread, Hillary isn't interested in changing trade or campain finances WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #118
In case you haven't noticed, both houses of Congress are controlled by the GOP YoungDemCA Apr 2015 #121
Draft Barbara Lee! nt daredtowork Apr 2015 #140
Would be fine with Sanders or Warren mvd Apr 2015 #145
No One Will "Turn Things Around" Liberal_Dog Apr 2015 #148
We need to beg the 1% to at least let us live in poverty and give us just a few more crumbs. L0oniX Apr 2015 #161
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If elected President, whi...»Reply #79