What does it say about the Democratic Party's core beliefs

[leftofthedial]

that the Specter switch is viewed as a good thing?

Don't we already have too many de facto repukes with a "D" by their name?

What does our party stand for, anyway? I mean other than naked political opportunism.

:shrug:

I can't figure it out anymore.

[mike_c]

1. exactly....

eom

[unpossibles]

2. to me it says more about Specter's opportunistic beliefs

He knows he's a rat on a sinking ship.

meh.

[Soylent Brice]

3. you took the words right out of my mouth.

[leftofthedial]

5. that is abundantly clear.

he's looking out for Arlen Spector. THis has nothing to do with *any* principle.


The question screams at us: As the repukes vanish into a fringe, far, right-wing vacuum, does the "Democratic" Party get sucked even farther right in its wake?

[stopbush]

4. It stands for power, that's what.

And power is what's needed if a progressive agenda is to be enacted in this country.

I've been puzzled by Obama's insistence on bi-partisanship, especially as it's been a one-way street. But listening to why Specter switched, I see the merit of that strategy. Clearly, Obama's call for bipartisanship helped to sway Specter.

With a filibuster-proof majority, Obama and the Ds will be free to do what they wish. And Obama will have the political clout to keep the Blue Dogs on a very short leash.

2010 - they year we get 65 Senators with a D next to their names.

[leftofthedial]

7. in the complete absence of any semblance of a progressive agenda

even on any DC politician's wish list, much less their to-do list, I'll have to grant you a theoretical point.

In reality, I see the Democratic Party moving to the right even faster than the repukes. The likelihood of more Specter's in the party leading to a progressive agenda seems remote, if not absurd.

[stopbush]

32. Put a finger up into the political wind - the country is shifting left.

Dramatically.

Do you think the pols in DC don't realize this? Of course they do, more than do the rest of us.

Prediction: you will see more and more facets of a progressive agenda introduced by more and more Ds. The progressives will be able to dare the Blue Dogs to act like the Rs, who are getting their lunch eaten on a daily basis.

In the end, they all care and worry about keeping their elitist, plum jobs. Just as Ds lined up to support bush's agenda when they though it was politically expedient, Ds will line up to support a progressive agenda. The Blue Dogs will voice their concerns with less and less gusto as they see their gripes falling on the deaf ears of an increasingly progressive populace.

It's just the way politics works. Being in the majority = good. Being in a minority = bad.

[Dr.Phool]

67. It usually takes a decade or longer for the Senate to catch up.

Things are always the same in their comfy little bubble.

[stopbush]

69. That sounds right, but is it true? Perhaps you can supply data to

support your assertion.

[Fire1]

66. I guess we'll be going back to the party of Lincoln.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. And how exactly do you enact a progressive agenda

...when you have more than a dozen "Democratic" senators who won't vote for it?

As for more Senators in 2010? That will only happen if we get some results. And that's not going to happen until the DLC/BlueBalls are neutered.

[readmoreoften]

14. They'll be "free to do what they wish" but the question is "what will they wish to do?"

It's not like the majority of the Senate Dems are progressive. Will they have more power to make "bipartisan" decisions against the wishes of actual progressives?

Look at what happened in Iceland. The left/green party had no power whatsoever and a conservative government was in place. When the country collapsed, the people, voted in the opposition who had always stuck to their principles. Now they have power.

Personally, I think this is a net zero for progressives. Not a win or a loss. Just more jostling.

[rucky]

37. This isn't a strategy for a progressive agenda...

it's a strategy to gain power for the sake of gaining power.

Progressives tend to be Dems, but Dems aren't necessarily progressives - less so now. Our leaders are taking their power from the center, so a progressive agenda is in danger of getting left in the dust if we don't have strong leadership within our own faction.

[bvar22]

70. With Conservative, Anti-LABOR, Pro-WAR, Pro RICH Class, Senators,

...there will NEVER be a "progressive agenda".

[provis99]

6. you're assuming that Specter won't vote any differently.

He will have little choice but to become much more liberal. The Democratic leadership will require it, Obama will require it, and the voters of Pennsylvania will require it. Rather than people compare Specter to Evan Bayh, it is better to compare his situation to that of Richard Shelby, who became vastly more conservative once he jettisoned the Democratic party in Alabama. Specter's smart enough to know that the only way he will survive is becoming much more liberal in his voting behavior in the Senate.

[leftofthedial]

10. He hasn't been a paragon of conservatism in recent years anyway.

I don't think his positions will change all that much--perhaps a key cloture vote here and there...

[Political Heretic]

16. He's not changing his position on EFCA.

As stated today.

So fuck him.

[Occam Bandage]

25. He also claimed he was a Republican up until today.

[Political Heretic]

39. In his announcement today, in answer to question he reaffirmed his now democratic opposition to it.

[nichomachus]

63. Bull

The Demowimps won't "require" anything.

[w4rma]

102. It's the primary voters who will require him to vote for EFCA.

He's toast if he doesn't. Democratic primary voters will hold his feet to the fire.

[bvar22]

72. Require Specter to vote more Liberal ?? LOL.

Obama & Company doesn't even require Democratic Senators to vote "Liberal".

Lieberman
Nelson
Nelson
Pryor
Lincoln
Landrieu
Feinstein...

...have been more of an obstruction to Obama's agenda than the Republicans, and Obama's agenda is "Centrist"...FAR from Liberal.

[anonymous171]

9. If we insisted on lockstep, this wouldn't even be an issue.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. I think the Democratic Party is the only one that still has conservatives, moderates, and liberals.

I do believe that being a 'big tent' party is one of its key principles.

[leftofthedial]

15. How quaint.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. I don't like people marching in lockstep at any extreme end of the spectrum. I agree with some

things the Democrats propose and disagree with others. It's called thinking and being logical. How very quaint indeed.

[leftofthedial]

27. I'm asking about principle

and you're answering with politics.

What does our party stand for, if anything, anymore?

How does Specter help us realize our goals?

[sinkingfeeling]

33. It stands for taking in all reasonable ideas, using logic to assess the value of those, and

coming up with creative ideas regardless of which end of the spectrum the idea came from. Apparently, you would like to exclude any person that isn't 'progressive' enough for you. Specter may well bring new ideas to the table. Our goal is to make this a better country and to improve the lives of its citizens.

[leftofthedial]

41. Let's just have a one-party country then,

and invite all beliefs into our big tent.

Does there not come a point at which it is self-defeating to include those with views that differ from your own?

Diversity is a good thing, but at some point the "big tent" becomes so huge that it renders the concept of a political party meaningless.

I'm still just trying to figure out what the new democratic party actually believes in. I haven't heard an answer.

I've heard a process--assess new ideas and examine them logically--but what is the qualitative basis for that assessment? Surely there is more to being a Democrat than just embracing a simplistic methodology.

:shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

100. Oh, I see, you're talking about a 'new democratic party' and I'm speaking for the Democratic Party.

One would think that someone within 'our party' would know the basic beliefs of it.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/stand.html

What We Stand For
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties.



And I see nothing wrong with having a one-party country if that's what the people want. The whole
thing should be about what's right for the citizens of the country and political parties' ideaology comes in way after. Just look at what's happening with the GOP. They are driving all sane people away from them with lightning speed.

[derby378]

108. That doesn't address our basic beliefs as Democrats

All you cited was a "to-do" list. But for what purpose does it exist?

Me, I think our core value as Democrats is that we stick up for the little guy. We are the party of labor, or at least we damn well ought to be.

[leftofthedial]

115. can you give me examples of how the Democratic Party is actually doing those things?

[sinkingfeeling]

122. Try reading posts on DU or the newspapers and look for a recap of the administration's first 100

days.

[hfojvt]

62. is he really gonna bring in good ideas

or is he bringing in stupid Republican ideas, like Bush-type tax cuts that he voted for back when he was an R? It annoys the heck out of me when I hear Democrats advancing Republican talking points. Take our Kansas Governor (please (just kidding because I was hoping she'd be elected Senator in 2010)) During this recession and budget crunch she took a tax increase off the table, saying 'a tax increase will hurt Kansas families'.

That's just Republican nonsense. Some tax increases, like a 1% increase in income taxes on incomes over $100,000 would only impact 9% of Kansas families, and a 1% hike is not much of a hurt. Another tax hike like a .2% increase in the sales tax would only cost 2 pennies for every $10 spent. That's not much hurt either, but it would save $64 million in budget cuts. That's over 1,000 jobs saved. $64 million in spending cuts is gonna hurt 1,000 families much more than 2 cents on $10 spent would.'

Elected officials have much more power to control the discourse than voters do, especially elected officials like Governors or Senators. It doesn't help progressives when even the Democrats agree more with conservatives than they do with progressives.

[Dr.Phool]

68. It stands for taking all ideas, using cash to assess the value of those, and

coming up with creative excuses, regardless of how idiotic the ideas were in the first place.

We've already got a one party system. They just fight over which faction gets the bigger piece of the K Street pie.

[blindpig]

44. Principle died long ago.

The failure to repeal Taft Hartley, to even address it, indicated the beginning of the end. Principle died sometime in the 70's, forgotten and virtually unmourned by a party which had long forgotten it.

[sufrommich]

34. We should weed out the moderates like the GOP did.

That worked out well. Seriously, how can you watch the end of the republican party and not get this glaring message?

[leftofthedial]

45. Apparently the message you are getting is to move to the right

(along with the repukes)

[Political Heretic]

12. It's pathetic.

[ecstatic]

13. Idealism vs. realism

Numbers matter. I don't agree with Specter's views, but we can only get what we want through the right numbers. If Specter's vote gets just ONE thing passed that otherwise wouldn't have passed, then that's a good thing!

[leftofthedial]

18. Get back to me when we "get what we want,"

'kay?

[ecstatic]

46. It takes time. It takes numbers... patience....nt

[Political Heretic]

23. That is a good thing, but its not cause for rampant celebration.

It just means we have one more conservative-center democratic to fight on the most crucial issues. It means we further dilute the party from the values it once stood for.

[TheCoxwain]

52. delete

self delete

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. "Our Party" ROFLMAO

I was shocked that you'd actually say that, being that you blast the Democratic party on this website and elsewhere more than most republicans I know.

[leftofthedial]

31. ad hominem

try again.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Do You Know What An Ad Hominem Is?

Not an ad hominem. Instead, just an observation of surprise, in direct relation to your OP, that you used the term 'Our party' when you consistently seek to trash it, undermine it, and cast loathing at it more than almost any republican I know. That's not an exaggeration either. It was a legitimate observation and genuine surprise to see you use the term 'our party'. So ad hominem? Nope. Conducive to further discussion and relevance as it relates to the OP? Nah, not really. Still not an ad hominem though. Just an observation, no matter how petty.

[leftofthedial]

42. yes. you attempt to dismiss my message

by making unrelated claims against me.

Just like we can't believe a word you say now that we all know you fart unrepentantly in church.

[dionysus]

95. bullshit, what he said was the truth. and look up ad hom if you would.

[leftofthedial]

116. We don't have to believe a word you said. I think it's interesting that someone like you

would even comment here, since you're the one who usually farts in church.

[dionysus]

123. you have the balls to say that when all you do is tear down the Democratic party? go to the greens

already fool, all you do is complain. you're actually bitching about the 60th seat we just got... are you an idiot?
:rofl:

[leftofthedial]

125. your definition of "we" is weak.

[Johonny]

19. Democratic party has always welcomed a wide range of views

Many democratic voters find them voting democrat not because of what the core party beliefs are but because the other party flat out refuses no compromises and no range of view points.

[sinkingfeeling]

21. Don't you know that's "quaint"? See response #15.

[tekisui]

22. Our core beliefs are there, strong and intact.

It says more about the repukes hard right turn and that they aren't going to be a viable party for some time.

[leftofthedial]

24. What are those core beliefs?

How have they been expressed legislatively over the last 30 years or so?

[Greyhound]

79. I'm curious too, what specifically are these "core beliefs" you speak of? n/t

:kick:

[Occam Bandage]

26. You consider yourself a Democrat? How strange.

I don't think I've seen you post anything about the Democrats that was not a vicious and specious attack.

[leftofthedial]

28. There are 16 wasted words in your last sentence.

[butterfly77]

29. As far as I am concerned this is..

just another blue dog..

[alarimer]

30. He was a Democrat years ago then became a Republican.

Now he's a Democrat again. Well people do change and the Republican party certainly has gone around the bend.

Personally, I am not all that excited or concerned about this because we still have to deal with all those DINO Blue Dogs who will vote with the Republicans more often than not.

[leftofthedial]

35. I agree.

1. He's a naked opportunist, not a principled leader.

2. He has increased the number of intra-party obstructionists by one.

[rapturedbyrobots]

36. more parties

this convinces me more than ever that the two party system is a crock of shit. democrat and republican don't really mean anything anymore. the repubs are willing to let anyone in as long as they are pro-gun, anti-abortion. and the democrats seem willing to take anybody at all as long as they tattoo a D on their forehead. neither of these parties has a coherent platform anymore. both exist as some strange conglomeration of directly conflicting ideologies: fundies, neo-cons, and fiscal conservatives for the repubs; and the dems are outright corporatist shills, upper middle-class white progressivism (ecos), social progressives, swing voters (idiots), the captive people of color vote, and republican outcasts. the two-party system is inherently crappy, but fails outright when the two parties aren't parties at all. why not break up the parties into smaller blocs that actually represent something consistent. let the 'centrists' from each party form a coporatist bloc. that's what centrism really means these days anyway...might as well make it official. let the progressives on the left and libertarians on the right form their own real parties and get true representation. even small but consistent representation is better than constantly being tossed out of the democratic platform. and let the fundies and neocons fight for themselves. ironically their union for survival a decade ago is exactly what is driving the party to irrelevance today. then the legislative process would require a process of real cooperation instead of this perpetual R vs D theater.

[leftofthedial]

43. The Democratic Party now includes completely the repuke party of the 1960's and 1970's

at least ideologically.

We're WAY to the right of Nixon or Eisenhower.

IF Barry Goldwater were alive today, he'd be a Democrat.

For that matter, ronnie raygun probably would have stayed a Democrat if he'd been alive today.


And in the wake of that hard-right shift, workers, the poor, the environment, the Constitution, the cause of peace and the concept of social justice are left flapping in the breeze.

[Romulox]

93. This is one of the best posts I've ever read on DU. nt

[sampsonblk]

97. Don't panic, friend. Its happening NOW

Right before your eyes. The GOP is collapsing. In the end, that will likely mean a lot of smaller parties for everyone to choose from.

[Truth2Tell]

40. Rec 5. I can't figure it out either. Or maybe I can

but it's just to gross to face.

[Redbear]

47. Specter switch is good for progressives for two reasons

If we assume Specter will stay in the Senate for another dozen years regardless of his party affiliation, by virtue of being in the Dem caucus he no longer has to pacify right wingers and that should mean he will vote more to our liking. EFCA is a good example. He can't change his mind on theunderlying bill, but he will now be much more likely to vote for cloture.

If we assume Specter would not be staying in the Senate, he might be replaced by a Dem, but there is a very real possibility he would be repealed by Toomey and that would be a very bad thing for progressives.

[leftofthedial]

49. I think, practically, he will help us reach cloture on a few important issues.

Being a relatively unprincipled opportunist, he will vote however is best for Arlen Specter, which for the foreseeable future means he'll probably vote somewhat more with Democrats than in the past.

He's just another "blue dog" as far as I can see. We already have too many of those obstructing what passes for a Democratic agenda from within.

My point is that the historically foundational principles of the Democratic Party are no longer operative.

Nothing lasts that's not built on a foundation.

[Redbear]

101. I see your point

I would rather have a principled Democrat in that seat. However, in our current political climate, we are definitely better off with a unprincipled Democrat than an unprincipled Republican.

[rapturedbyrobots]

54. please restrict your use of the word progressive

progressive and democrat are NOT interchangeable. that's the point. his switch doesn't mean anything for progressives because the democratic party doesn't give them any real representation to begin with. this doesn't mean that progressives aren't part of the party, but really...how many progressive policies are making their way through congress right now? where are we on universal health care (not universal health coverage...different thing entirely). how about immigration policy? how's that ending of the iraq war going for us? how about the bailout of the finance capital industry? how about basic things like going to jail for torturing people?

[smoogatz]

48. It's about our ability to get things done, or not get them done.

Specter will continue to be Specter, but if he wants any plum committee seats in his waning years he'll have to vote with us on the big stuff. That's how it works.

[leftofthedial]

51. what "things"?

[smoogatz]

57. Oh, just little stuff--

healthcare, budgets, climate, energy, defense, pig flu, the economy--nothing important.

[leftofthedial]

58. let's keep track of what "gets done."

[smoogatz]

61. You go right ahead.

Like I said, if Specter wants any power in the Dem caucus, he'll play ball.

[leftofthedial]

65. I think he will help us reach cloture on a few key things each session

and he'll probably vote slightly more Democratic than he already did.

Practically, I think it's probably a net positive. PR-wise, I think it's very bad for repukes.

Philosophically, I wonder where the far right edge of our tent really is.

[smoogatz]

73. I'm less worried about ideological purity than effective governing.

That's one of the things that separates me from the wingnuts. You should run over to freeptardland for a few minutes, if you can stand it. Know what they're saying over there? Specter's gone? Good riddance! Maybe he'll take Snowe, Collins, and McCain with him! As in: we're happy to be an irrelevant minority party as long as we're ideologically all exactly on the same page. I think we should seize the opportunity to get some stuff done now that we're in the majority. Don't forget, too, that with 60 Senate votes there's no obstacle to Obama's appointments, and we're likely to have at least two Supremes retiring any time now.

[leftofthedial]

78. I'm not looking for ideological purity; I too want good governance.

But traditional republicanism does not yield good governance, and the "center" of the Democratic Party is now squarely in the spot once occupied by republicans.

[smoogatz]

84. That's been true since Clinton won the nomination in '92.

Tells you something about how far right the political spectrum has shifted since Reagan's first term.

[leftofthedial]

85. yup.

and still moving.

the good news is the rightward shift is pushing the republicans off the far-right cliff at the edge of the political world.

the bad news is the democrats are now where the republicans used to be and *nobody* represents workers, the poor, the planet...

[smoogatz]

87. The good news is that the pendulum is swinging our way again,

looks like, and maybe generationally so. The far-right has dominated public discourse in this country since Eisenhower's presidency; the trick is to not get complacent, and keep kicking the hell out of them when they're down.

[sinkingfeeling]

98. What is 'traditional republicanism'? And could you prove why traditional republicanism does not yiel

good governance? What administration would you point to as 'traditional republicanism' in action? And what does having Specter joining the Democratic Party have to do with good governance?

[leftofthedial]

112. traditional republicanism--Nixon, Eisenhower, Hoover

as distinguished from modern republicanism--raygun, George the First, George the Lesser


Nixon gave us crime in high office, and sowed the seeds for economic woes that befell Carter

Eisenhower, while accomplishing a little--most notably the Interstate highway system, and while warning us of impending danger, did nothing to prevent the rapid rise and eventual takeover of our country by the military-industrial complex.

Hoover capped a long run of traditional republicanism that gave us the Great Depression, WWII



repukes rule? the country suffers.

[Number23]

88. You are absolutely spot on

Maybe he'll take Snowe, Collins, and McCain with him! As in: we're happy to be an irrelevant minority party as long as we're ideologically all exactly on the same page.

Pick a thread, ANY thread on FR and you will that same pitiful sentiment over and over and over again. It almost makes you wonder if their stupidity and blindness are not some form of protection.

[Two Americas]

50. agreed

Of all of the issues here around which loyalty and support have been debated, this one bothers me the most.

Anyone who does not welcome Specter into the party is now to be seen as disloyal and as a purist and fringe?



...

[TheCoxwain]

53. This kind of exclusionary thinking is what got Republicans into so much trouble ..

you cant expect everyone in the parry to be lockstep with the Majority opinion in the party. Lets make room for dissent - This is good in the longer run though it might be painful on specific issues.

[rapturedbyrobots]

60. some things are not negotiable

in order for it to be a party there has to be some sort of foundation...which has been completely dismantled in order to secure a large voting bloc that includes a lot of traditional republicans. the republicans have attempted a foundation of god gays and guns. but are now coming to realize that this lead to a lot of internally conflicting interests and the party is basically falling apart. dems made a similar compromise by trying to unite progressives and corporatists...but there is no base as the two approaches are essentially diametrically opposed. so split them up. let the centrists from each party unite to form a corporatist bloc. and the progressives can regroup and come up with their own platform dedicated to social justice and responsibility...we can call it...lets see...democratic socialism. what a crazy concept.

[Fleshdancer]

55. I think it says more about our political beliefs than rejecting him would

Since when did Democrats believe in kicking people out of the tent?

[polmaven]

56. It says we really are

the big tent party. We do not demand that everyone wear blinders and "obey". We are here for the atheist and for the religious, for the homosexual and the heterosexual, for the left and the moderate, for the old and the young, for the rich and the poor, for the working class and for the rich and the uber-rich. Black, white, brown, red or yellow....we are there for you.

We are Democrats. One and all, and all are welcome.

[leftofthedial]

59. "all are welcome."

really?

[polmaven]

92. Yes, really.

n/t

[leftofthedial]

113. Karl Rove?

Is he welcome?

How about Dick Cheney?

Are he and his ideas welcome?

What about white supremacists?

Should we invite them and their ideology into the Democratic Party?

I don't think you and I agree on this.

If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.

[bulloney]

64. I remember the time when Democrats in Congress switched to Republican.

Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to name a few.

The Republicans had no problem taking them in.

[dem629]

71. Yeah, let's be purists. 100% or leave! It's working so well for the other party.

What is the point of your post, anyway?

You seem to be debating yourself, based on what you said in post 65:

You said you think Specter will help us get to cloture, you think it's probably a net positive for Dems, you think it's bad PR for the Repubs...

So, what's the question again?

[iamthebandfanman]

75. nobodys asking for 100%

i love how you locksteppers always imply its all or nothing with people who disagree with you.


nah, i think wed just be happy with more than 40% of the time.

[dem629]

80. If you find a way of making sense out of your point, let me know.

[iamthebandfanman]

119. yikes

if you cant understand what im saying, then maybe a course on reading comprehension is in order.


Im saying, specter probably agrees with our stances around 40% of time .. if we are lucky.

so no, we arent asking for someone to be 100%...
but wed like someone who did agree with our stances more than just 40% of the time.

i dont think thats asking to much, do you ?

[dem629]

120. Yeah.

I love it when someone plays the "reading comprehension" card after writing "sentences" like these:

"nobodys asking for 100%
i love how you locksteppers always imply its all or nothing with people who disagree with you
but wed like someone who did agree with our stances more than just 40% of the time
i dont think thats asking to much, do you ?"

Brilliant stuff. :rofl:

But back to the point: What percentage is sufficient?

[Fumesucker]

77. What does our party stand for?

That's the question, again.

Not much of anything as far as I can tell, we'll take *anybody* as long as they're willing to put a "D" by their name.

[dem629]

81. Many different things. What percentage must someone agree with before we accept them?

[Fumesucker]

86. If it's less than fifty percent...

Then what's the point?

With friends like Arlen "Grima Wormtongue" Specter who needs political enemies?

[dem629]

121. So 51% is acceptable?

I'm not being nit-picky here. People are actually trying to apply a percentage to this. I'm trying to figure out what the acceptable number is, and how these people are arriving at that number.

[Fumesucker]

126. You're probably going to get frustrated by this but...

It really depends..

Which 51% are we talking about?

Some policies are less negotiable than others to me, I'm sure that's true for at least some other people.

[TorchTheWitch]

106. like Zell Miller

Why the hell Dems accept people like that in the party is beyond me. We made this giant shift to the right because we accept people like that who VOTE like that. Is it any wonder that doing anything for the average working person doesn't get done and we get flogged by rampant deregulation, creditcard usury, dispicable healthcare, endless debt, endless war, TORTURE, warrantless spying, outsourcing, in-scourcing, etc., etc., etc. JEEBUS! We got there because there are two parties - Whackjob Repuke, and Repuke Lite. There is no party for the average Joe anymore and hasn't been for a very long time. That's what happens when you let way too many Repuke Lite's into the Dem party and let them VOTE that way.

Specter even SAID he was going to run as a Dem because he knew he can't win as a Repuke and the seat will be in danger of having a REAL Dem in it so that Obama could slam through whatever he wanted...

"If there's a Democrat in my place," Specter said earlier this month, "they'll be able to do whatever they want."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1894455-2,00.html

And people here are CELEBRATING this. Good grief.

[iamthebandfanman]

74. i think it says more about DU

than it does the powerful in our party.

[Mike 03]

76. Wouldn't it be exciting if we simply viewed it realistically, as a "Thing." It's not all

good and it's not all bad.

He's pissed. Did anyone hear his interview with Howard Stern three weeks ago?

I like the guy more than I dislike him. It's like 53% like, 47% dislike.

[Vidar]

82. Democratic Party's core beliefs:power & money.

We have a few good people, but Spector's more the rule than the exception. We are simply the lesser of two evils.

[datasuspect]

96. right on the money

[Lorien]

127. That's pretty much it. That's why I don't understand the fury over this gain

Obama is a conservative Democrat, Hillary is a conservative Democrat, outside of Kucinich and a handful of others, MOST Dems on the hill are more conservative than the Democratic base. I agree; Spector is more the rule than the exception, so he should be treated like the rest.

[rpannier]

83. I'll take him for the 60th vote

But I want Stesak to challenge him in the primaries

I want the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania to determine who their Democratic nominee is -- not Harry Reid and the US Senate

[Hekate]

89. It says that the Dem Party is the true Big Tent. It says that Joe Biden knows how to reach across...

... the freakin' aisle and it's going to help us that he does. It says that insisting on political purity as the Repubs do leads to sterility and death, which is what is happening to them right now.

Specter's press conference was a pleasure to watch, actually, and I recommend seeing it all the way through. The man is 79 years old and doesn't have to prove much of anything anymore, but he knows he doesn't want to leave politics (or leave this Earth) watching his now-former party continue it's devolution into the Party of Utter Assholes.

And that's a good thing.

Hekate

[Norrin Radd]

90. kr

Yeppers. Something about leopards and spots, and a frog and a scorpion.

[quaker bill]

91. Nothing

It is a free country and there is no test you have to pass to register as a Democrat. You may consider this unfortunate, but it is none the less true.

[dionysus]

94. yeah, it sure would suck to have those 60 votes...

:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

118. we don't even have the 58 votes before he switched

:eyes:

[bigwillq]

99. I think the significance of the switch

has more to do with the Democratic party being a party that is willing to accept members from all spectrums, and hear and respect viewpoints from all sides than just a repuke switching parties.

The Democratic party is a welcoming and open-minded party, not one just for extremes.

It will be interesting to see how Specter votes now.

[TayTay]

103. It is a political party

IT broadly stands for a range of issues. However, any two Democrats randomly picked would probably have a 70% chances of agreeing on most everything.

There are no loyalty or ideology tests for people when the register. Any one person registering as a Democrat may have an idea of what that means that is different from any other person registering as a Democrat. Some think it means an emphasis on issues related to working people and government services and benefits. Others may see the Democrats as a Party concerned with civil and constitutional rights. Still others may be there because their parents were and they don't overthink the involvement.

There are as many reasons for people being Dems as there are people. The only way to get the kind of enforced unity of ideology that you seek would be a purge and a test of sorts. This is unlikely to ever happen as it leads to smaller participation.

[rapturedbyrobots]

104. representatives vs voters

the problem isn't voters registering as democrats for personal reasons. its that an elected member of congress (elected by other people for other interests) is now pretending to represent our values (whatever those happen to be now...anybody sure?). and yes...for them there is a purge and a test of sorts...it happens every couple years and its called an election.

nobody is talking about ideological purity or forced unity. just the very simple premise that a party should agree on some fundamental issues. the details of policy and positions that arise from the representation of those fundamental issues can and should always be up for debate.

[TayTay]

105. purge based on what?

each elected office holder is independently elected to federal office. An Arlen Specter can switch parties because Arlen Specter, not "the Republican nominee from Pennsylvania" was elected to the Senate. There is no way within our system of government to yoke our Reps to a platform.

Fear can be a great motivator in influencing behavior. However, my Reps are much more responsive to pressure from the grassroots within their own state and districts than they are from any national movement. It's nice that Barack Obama is popular but it is not compelling of behavior. (My Reps are with him "enough" that criticism is actually muted.)

How do you wish to compel ideological purity within the Constitutional system that we have? We elected 435 Reps each 2 years independent of the President and with varying degrees of belief in the range of Democratic policy. What would compel cohesion in this system?

(In other words, I think some people long for a Parliamentary or European form of government in which Party identification matters more than it does here in the States.)

[mistertrickster]

107. Our core beliefs are "for the common good." Period. Anything more than that

becomes ideology and ideology becomes dogma.

I was watching the speeches of Hitler on YouTube yesterday, and the thing that struck me was not so much the horrible, heinious ideas but his complete, total, unwavering CONVICTION that he was right.

We have to be able to disengage from conviction to be objective enough to see if our policies actually serve the common good.

Movements of the left and right are littered with the debris of their shattered rigid orthodoxies. The feminist movement and the SDS are two good examples of movements purging themselves into irrelevancy because of ideological "purity."

Now the right-wing Fundy-CONs are splintering and riven as they do the same thing to each other, going so far as casting out Arlen Specter.

Pragmatism isn't as sexy as "righteous unwavering belief," but it is a lot better for our country.

(editted for formatting)

[rapturedbyrobots]

110. this means nothing

the 'common' good. who does this apply to? what happens when the interests of one segment of the 'commons' is directly at odds with the other? lets say slaves & abolitionsists vs. slave owners...or to give a recent example, torturers vs. human rights supoprters...or if you include corporations in the 'commons' which is the case now, who do we serve in trying to solve the financial crisis...corporate interests (who created and are now profiting from the crisis) or the interests of the working poor (or as we like to call them 'middle class' who are getting royally screwed). sometimes you have to pick a side. and yes...i do have an unwavering belief in the primacy of justice in social, economic and legal reform.

[mistertrickster]

111. I think that "common good" infers benefiting the many instead of the few.

The estate tax for example benefits society far more than giving individual heirs vast wealth.

You "pick a side" based on benefits versus costs.

On edit-- of course these benefits would be weighed against a criteria of values. I'm not arguing for a "vaules free" culture, which is impossible.

[omega minimo]

109. The common core belief is the sworn duty to the Constitution, which many find inconvenient.

Specter is one who continues to speak out and legislate on upholding the Rule of Law.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5558197&mesg_id=5558197

[tabasco]

114. Oh! The pure virgin!

Never heard of a coalition!

We should throw away this opportunity to improve the nation to be loyal to an internet poster's ideals!!

How do you think they form governments in Europe?

[dionysus]

124. don't you *dare* kick dust at that high horse!!! you DLC stooge!

60 votes in the senate is for losers dontcha know!!

:rofl:

[undeterred]

117. We're a "big tent" with a "losers corner" that is fairly large.

[Mari333]

128. theres only one party it seems

corporate party run by corporations. a few dems seem to have the integrity to break from it, but it seems to have the rest of them by the short hair$$$. dems and pubs both.