Why Liberals Compromise/Why liberals think their politicians are all wimps

[BzaDem]

Kevin (on Mother Jones) explains it this way:

"The real explanation, at least for the past few decades, is much simpler: about 40% of the American population self-IDs as conservative, compared to only 20% who self-ID as liberal. You can argue all day long about what people really mean when they tell pollsters they're conservative, and you can argue all day long that liberals need to do something to change this instead of simply accepting it, but for any politician running for national office in the here and now, this is just the lay of the land. A hardcore conservative with hardcore conservative beliefs can count on a pretty big base of support right from the start, while a hardcore liberal candidate can count on bupkis. Conservative Republicans can win. Liberal Democrats generally can't unless they're running in very liberal congressional districts. If you're looking for a reason that liberal politicians tend to compromise more, you really don't have to look much further than this."

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/12/why-liberals-compromise

--snip--

On the other hand, John (on the Plumline) explains it this way:

"Drum believes the answer has to do with the two-to-one advantage conservatives have in self-identification over liberals in polling. I disagree; I don't think that polling corresponds to actual attitudes about issues, or in fact to any actual political behavior. Yes, it's possible that liberals are spooked and conservatives draw strength from their perceptions about those polls, but I think the effect is marginal, at best. Drum says that "liberal Democrats can't win," but that's surely not true -- Barack Obama is a mainstream liberal, and mainstream liberals win statewide all the time, even in states far less liberal than Rhode Island. It's true that Obama and, say, Michael Bennet aren't going to brag about being liberals the way that John McCain and Sarah Palin are going to brag about being conservative, but it's not really clear to me that any of that matters a whole lot.

I think the main thing here is what I think of as an Iron Law of Politics: activists always believe that the other side is better organized, tougher in negotiations, and more cutthroat than they are. Democrats find it hard to believe, but conservative activists think that Republicans are the ones always caving, that Democrats are more apt to find tricky ways to use rules to their advantage, and so on. The Iron Law doesn't mean that in fact the two sides are always exactly equal in these things, but it does explain most of the perceived differences (from both sides)."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/why_liberals_think_their_polit.html?wprss=plum-line

--snip--

I actually think John agrees more with Kevin than he thinks. John assumes (correctly in my view) that Obama is a mainstream liberal, and then argues how that shows mainstream liberals can be elected. Kevin, on the other hand, assumes for the sake of argument what many here do (that Obama is laughably far from being a liberal), and uses that to show that mainstream liberals can't really get elected in non-liberal districts. After all, while some say that self-identified ideological labels are meaningless, the truth is actually quite the opposite -- conservatives almost unanimously vote for Republicans, and liberals almost unanimously vote for Democrats.

If you were to define to John what your conception of a liberal is (such as "far to the left of Obama"), and then ask him how likely they are to get elected in a non-liberal district, John would probably agree more with Kevin than he lets on.

That being said though, I think John brings up a really good point. Many here simply assume out of faith that what they want is actually possible. Then, when they don't get what they want, they find someone/something to blame other than their original assumption (such as "Obama's not a liberal!" "Obama's a crypto conservative Wall Street patsy!" etc).

But in reality, rather than constructing more and more far-fetched explanations for why they didn't get what they want, I think the more correct approach would be to re-evaluate their initial assumption in the first place. Perhaps what they wanted really wasn't feasible at the time, and perhaps that's the reason why they didn't get it. The same thing happens on the conservative side -- they think their leaders are all wimps too. They similarly start from the position that what they want is actually possible, and then when they don't get it, they come up with more and more far-fetched explanations on why they didn't get it (rather than ask themselves if their initial assumption was accurate in the first place).

[msongs]

1. obama a mainstream liberal? that's too funny nt

[BzaDem]

2. That's really my point though.

There are plenty of people here who think Obama is somehow not liberal. While they are free to define the term "liberal" as they wish, and judge Obama as they wish, I think both John and Kevin would agree that if you don't think Obama is liberal, you are probably going to be very disappointed after every election for the rest of your life.

[ananda]

4. Obama is NOT liberal, not even close.

That's just a fact. He's rightwing corporatist all the way.

[BzaDem]

5. Similarly, many conservatives think that Bush wasn't a conservative at all. That all he did was

appease the left. He left all these executive departments (EPA, HHS, etc) in existence, he didn't just demolish the filibuster and privatize SS or drill in ANWR, he didn't cut the discretionary spending budget by 20%, etc.

These attitudes are nothing new (and that is the point of John's "Iron law").

[grahamhgreen]

36. Obama fought to extend the Bush tax cuts and the wars. Bush did not fight for liberal programs.

Bush did fight for most of the things you mention.

Obama, OTOH, fights for conservative causes, such as offshore drilling.

This is the difference. Obama promotes most of the agenda of the wealthy power elite, as did Bush.

[MilesColtrane]

52. "Obama, OTOH, fights for conservative causes, such as offshore drilling."

http://greenroots.pcl.org/2010/12/07/obama-administration-bans-offshore-drilling/

Obama Administration Bans Offshore Drilling

Last Wednesday, the Department of the Interior announced that it would not pursue new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or the East Coast for the next seven years. The announcement effectively reverses the position on offshore drilling that the Interior Department adopted in March, in which it supported investigating new wells on the Eastern seaboard from Florida to Delaware.

According to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the new position is a result of the BP Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year, which underscored weaknesses in federal regulation and oversight. Secretary Salazar stated, in order to address the problems highlighted by the spill, new and pending drilling projects will be subject to a more rigorous environmental review that will include stringent spill response requirements.

The announcement has been widely supported by the environmental community, which sees the reduction in potential offshore drilling sites as a positive step toward reducing the risk of future catastrophic oil spills and environmental degradation. However, some pending offshore drilling projects off the coast of Alaska are still being allowed to proceed. As Marilyn Heiman from the Pew Environment Group said, “What it means is they’ve learned a great deal from the Macondo blowout…they still need to learn a lot more.”

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrScorpio]

3. Getting things done, in spite of compromise is a non-starter...

Especially for those folks who are out on the fringe who and have only their "principles" to show for any and all kinds of purpose.

It's best NOT to factor in the lay of the land whilst one is dwelling solely on the fringe.

Standing defiantly against small gains (even ones that can be progressively built upon), with nothing less than complete and uncompromised victory in mind, is much more nobler than achieving results out in the fringe.

Yes, the Fringe… Nothing else matters.

[walldude]

10. I'd rather have my principles and nothing else

then to be a part of this joke of a dog and pony show.

Funny, it used to be that a person who stood up for what's right, a person who stood by their convictions, was to be admired.

A man with a dream. A woman on a bus. A soldier who refused to hide who he was. A songwriter who refused to shut up. If these people "compromised" who they were because "they factored in the lay of the land" this country would not be what it is today.

So you guys go ahead and enjoy your little rants about whiners and ponies, and keep making fun of the people who stand by their beliefs. It says much more about you then it does about them.

[MrScorpio]

13. Because principles are much more satisfying than results….

Or even working towards convincing people who may disagree with you to work WITH you is so very wrong.

Yeah, I get that part.

Unfortunately, I really can't see how anything that was ever progressive was completely perfect at the moment in which it was achieved.

These things evolve over time, from small gains to greater ones. They create their own necessity and momentum, as more and more of the previously unconvinced come on board to a different way of thinking.

You've got to start somewhere… You've got to get your foot in the door and work hard to pry it open even wider.

If compromise helps one achieve that goal, when "standing up for what's right" and nothing more achieves absolutely NOTHING, then I'll choose compromise and the long road every single time.

It's not about us, it's always about who comes after us.

This uncompromised and intransigent stand on nothing more than ones "principles" is mighty selfish indeed… And totally self defeating.

[Kahuna]

29. Great post, Mr. S. Though I do wonder why you bother to

try to make it here. The vast majority of regular Dems who support the president and who want to see him as the nominee in 2012 (80%), (not fringe types) are no longer posting on DU. Seems to me that you are whistling in the wind.

Your point about catering to the fringe minority being a fool's errand (paraphrased) is very valid, but you just won't get much agreement here. Nice try though by you and the OP. :applause:

[BzaDem]

17. If your principles result in nothing (or a regression to conservative policy),

how does what you claim your principles to be even matter?

I thought we look at actions. Not words. If your words and motivations are good, but they always result in no action (or regressive action after the next election), how are your intentions even relevant?

If a conservative stood up and claimed they were for a strong middle class, regulation of banks, etc, we wouldn't care about their words. Why? Because their actions are always the opposite of what their words are.

How is it significantly different for a liberal who makes the same claims, but whose actions result in no policy action or worse -- electoral Republican victories? Why does it matter what their words are when the results are always in the wrong direction?

[walldude]

21. Well your entire premise is skewed.

You are saying that in order to get things done you have to give in on your principles. Which means you have to stand up for something you don't really believe in. Because if you can't get anything done then your principles don't matter.. That is fucked up man. Sorry.

What makes this all really bad is Democrats like you and MrS. and the current administration spend so much time telling us liberals how clueless we are, how we don't know what political reality is, how we whine and want ponies, how we need rehab, and how we are just fucking ret**ds, and then blame us when we don't go out and vote.

I'll never figure that one out. You want support but only from people who march in lock step. I've seen where that road leads and I'm not going anywhere near it.


I'm about done with politics and the political system altogether. I'm about ready to leave it to people like you who have all the answers... :rofl:

[BzaDem]

22. Just because you think a premise is skewed doesn't mean it isn't entirely correct.

Your argument against my premise is that "it's fucked up man." But that doesn't even pretend to be evidence that the premise is false. It is simply evidence that you don't like the consequences if the premise were true.

But things are true all the time that you aren't thrilled about. Part of life is dealing with premises that you don't like. Something doesn't become false just because you don't like the consequences that flow from it.

"What makes this all really bad is Democrats like you and MrS. and the current administration spend so much time telling us liberals how clueless we are, how we don't know what political reality is, how we whine and want ponies, how we need rehab, and how we are just fucking ret**ds, and then blame us when we don't go out and vote."

You might not like hearing the truth, that doesn't make it not the truth or inconsistent in any way. Not voting for a Democrat means you get a worse outcome than voting for a Democrat (whether or not you like what happens under Democrats). Them telling the truth to you is not a bad thing.

What's ultimately much more effective than telling the truth to certain people is to just wait for them to see the consequences of their own actions. This is what happened after 2000. People don't want to vote for Gore? Fine. 2 wars and hundreds of thousands of deaths later, they magically started to re-enter reality, and Nader's vote share dropped 90% in 2004. There's nothing as effective as pure reality. It is unfortunate that people can't look 5 minutes in front of them and prevent another re-run though.

And Gore has a perfectly good life in the meantime. Nader's supporters were FAR more negatively affected by Bush's policies than Gore was.

The truth is that you (and others with similar views) need the Democratic party FAR more than they need you.

[JamesA1102]

51. Very well said nt

[Marr]

6. Oh, c'mon-- let's just admit the obvious.

Obama's political strategy over the last two years has been to court big business as supporters of the Democratic Party, while building a few pieces of legislation on popular subjects that he can sell as accomplishments to voters come election time. To accomplish the former, he had to do the latter in ways that didn't offend big business.

Obama's ideology isn't a factor here at all, and is irrelevant. He's operated purely as a party strategist, with no concern for ideology whatsoever.

Do you really disagree?

[BzaDem]

7. Not only do I disagree -- I think the opposite of your point is actually obvious.

If Obama wanted to please big business, there are many things he did that he wouldn't have done. The thing that would have pleased big business most is to propose a financial reform that wouldn't have gotten any Republican votes. Then it would have died, and the financial sector would have continued to be unregulated. And additionally no consumer agency would have formed (an added bonus for big business). The "base" would be ecstatic that Obama was "taking a stand," and big business would happy play the naivete of the "base" like a fiddle and continue business as usual after the death of financial reform.

Similarly, he could have demanded single payer, gotten 10 votes in the Senate, and then moved on. Then health insurers could have remained unregulated, and healthcare reform would have become radioactive for the next generation. No politican would touch it. Eventually, future politicans in some future generation would be fighting for crumbs of what we got in 2010, just like the 2010 fight was over the crumbs of the 94 fight.

And furthermore, to the extent "problems with the base" actually exist (for the sake of argument), the "base" would have gone wild, since the "base" (at least the small subset of the base represented by DU) are only happy when a politician fights for the infeasible and loses.

[Marr]

8. I think you're making a few erroneous assumptions.

Obama's financial reforms were toothless-- and exactly the sort of PR-focussed "win" I mentioned in my first post. We've yet to see whether the agency Warren is setting up will actually be allowed to do what they claim it will do.

As for healthcare reform, it's a handout to the insurance industry. Yes, they made a little public stink about it, and got additional "compromises" (ie, handouts) as a result. Are you really arguing that Obama's healthcare reform is bad for the big insurance outlets' profits?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There was no ideological position in the mix at all, except for a few statements and occasional posturing for voters, claiming support for this or that item that was inevitably nixed from the final deal.

[BzaDem]

12. Your post is a perfect representation of what I'm talking about.

Regardless of the facts, regardless of what the bills actually do, there will still be some small group of "the base" that actually thinks they are "toothless" or "handouts" (or both). This is exactly what happened when FDR wanted Social Security passed -- there were some liberals who not only thought it was "toothless" -- they actually wanted to kill it for being toothless.

Fortunately for most progressives, these people were ignored.

But that's one way we knew that FDR was actually on the side of the people. If he wasn't on the side of the people, he could have demanded Social Security also cover healthcare (as many were arguing for), and his proposal would have been killed. Then, this very small group of people who thought a non-healthcare SS was "toothless" would have been overjoyed (since FDR "stood on principle" or whatever), but the conservatives would have actually won (and laughed at the naivete of the liberals who thought SS was "toothless").

Similarly, the bills that passed actually show Obama is on the side of the people (rather than the opposite, as you assert). Because if he were actually on the side of big business, ALL he had to do was propose a politically infeasible version of financial reform and watch as it failed in the Senate. Then, a tiny portion of the "base" would have jumped up and cheered (since Obama "stood on principle"), while big business would have laughed and high fived each other after its failure.

I still have yet to hear anyone coherently explain why, if Obama was on the side of big business, he wouldn't have just proposed bills that were ambitious enough to fail (making big business ecstatic).

[OHdem10]

16. If they are so Liberal, why did the Centrist types vote against

Health Care.

On just about every issue the Republicans could honestly
proclaim --It is not just the GOP it is members of Obama's
on Party.

[BzaDem]

19. Actually, everyone from Bernie Sanders to Ben Nelson and Lieberman voted for healthcare.

Why? Because we needed 60 votes, and we had 60.

In the House, we only needed 218 Democrats. So only 218 Democrats voted for it. There's no reason for a blue dog to take a tough vote in a conservative district if the vote is irrelevant to the outcome.

You want to know who not only voted against healthcare but ACTUALLY wanted it to fail? Every single Republican in both houses. Joined by AHIP (the insurance industry), who spent tens of millions in ads to kill the bill and drumming up faux town hall opposition. And that was just in 2009 -- before the onslaught of spending to kill HCR really began.

[MilesColtrane]

53. Yep, just watch over the next two years as House Republicans do every thing they can to...

defund, dismantle, and destroy most of what Obama has signed into law since 2008, including the Health Care Reform bill.

[Marr]

23. I just told you.

He wanted to rack up some legislative "wins" on which to run. He has to get the votes of his party, but he wanted to do it in a way that would allow the party to court big business.

[BzaDem]

25. But in your theory, wouldn't he have done BETTER with his party if he "stood on principle"

and said he would VETO a bill without a public option, or that didn't break up the banks?

Wouldn't that make him get MORE party votes (in your theory)? Since he was standing on principle, standing up to the Repubs, not backing down, "showing a spine," etc?

Furthermore, wouldn't that help big business MORE (since there would have been no bills passed at all)?

[Marr]

28. It doesn't really matter what I think would be successful.

In my opinion, the Obama Administration thought it'd be politically effective to run on things they could call "wins", whether there was any substance to them or not. I think they were wrong, and that people are in more pain than they were in Clinton's time, when this sort of thing worked just fine-- but again, my opinion doesn't really matter here. I'm describing what I believe to have been the Obama Administration's political calculus.

[OHdem10]

9. As long as you agree that the Centrist Candidates in their

pursuit of office, ONLY Campaign and try to appeal
to the same group of voters as the Republicans.
(Rich down to about 50 thousand dollars annually).

Naturally, if you are competing for Republican
and the more affluent Democrats, you will be more
"republican" in your approach.

Keep in mind, one half the country never votes.
No one really tries to appeal for their votes.

The DLC Centrists had as their objective to compete
for the Business Vote and the Upper Classes. There
is nothing wrong with this--I think it gives a better
explanation as why DLC Centrists Compromise.

President Obama is a New Democrat. He said so himself.
Our trying to make him something he is not creates the
frustration.

[jtown1123]

11. these labels are stupid. I bet if you gave those 40% a list of policies or beliefs

like education, investing in good American jobs, a strong social safety net for seniors, disabled and children and various other things, they would come out as "liberals." You'll find with national security, there is barely any difference between dems and repubs in Congress.

[OHdem10]

14. It matters greatly on how they vote.

[BzaDem]

15. I would agree labels are stupid in terms of issue preferences. But they are not stupid in terms of

voting behavior.

When people are polled, they always want low taxes and high spending. They never want cuts, and they never want tax increases. (Sometimes they do want tax increases on the rich, but to actually fund the priorities they claim they want, you would need tax increases on the non-rich as well.)

But let's accept your premise -- that people (when polled) are more liberal than they vote.

SO WHAT?

If a person wants things liberals favor, but then votes for a conservative, how is it at all relevant what they want? Conservatives vote for politicians who propose conservative policies, and self-identified liberals vote for politicians who favor liberal policies. (Almost unanimously usually.)

Your theory is that many conservatives would actually come out as liberals when asked about policy positions. But we don't vote for policy positions -- we vote for people. And if they keep voting for only people who are conservative, how are their issue positions even relevant? To win, each side has to cross over somewhat to appeal for votes on the other side. So the fact that conservatives start out with 40% of the population in each election (REGARDLESS of the issue positions of the 40%) is quite relevant. Likewise, the fact that we only start out with 20% is quite relevant. It is not stupid to look at labels at all.

[creon]

33. It is not stupid

It is not stupid to look at labels.

I am well aware that my 'principles' are held by a minority. I have good reason to think that minority is a permanent minority. It was a majority for a short time, in two administrations: FDR and JFK/LBJ.

For myself, the question of 'compromise' or 'stand on principle' is moot.

[Recursion]

30. If you ask about spending, 80% of the country is liberal. Ask about revenues, 80% are conservative.

That's another iron law, and has been since 1789.

Ask about opening Medicare to everyone, 80% of the country say yes. Ask them to pay for it, 80% say no.

That gives us a way to pry away some of the 40% of self-identified conservatives, because about half of them will also support liberal spending policies. But they'll get nervous as we start to get revenue for them (this was why so much time and effort was spent keeping HCR deficit-neutral at worst, though in the end it still spooked a lot of people).

[pampango]

18. We call ours "DINO's". They call theirs "RINO's". Lots of differences, but similar frustrations. n/t

[WingDinger]

20. The Republicans use the door in the face sales technique.

Scream your fool head off, with treasonous lies, and knowingly. Then, after you cause massive stir, admit to much less actual claim. This has been used to MOVE the center. In conjunction with socialism=fascism=liberal, the socalled common wisdom of a far left press, is psy-ops. Big lie.

[Rex]

24. The real problem at the moment is Obama has lost most of his liberal

support and wants to use anger as a technique for getting them back...which won't work, it will do just the opposite.

[BzaDem]

26. 91% of liberal Democrats approve of Obama's job performance. Kind of pokes a hole in your theory.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

[Clio the Leo]

27. I think that pretty much sums it up. nt

[creon]

31. Interesting

First,Obama is, at least, as liberal as I am. He is, also, a realist. To a point. He did decide that he wanted to be president; so, he cannot be all that realistic. I expect that realizes that people are fickle.

Second, I basically agree with all that was posted.


Last, 'compromise' vs 'stand up for your principles', is an interesting dichotomy. What do you do about your 'principles' when the votes are not there?


An interesting background fact: 40 to 60% of the eligible voters do no vote. That fact is not meaningless.

[grahamhgreen]

34. You say, "what they (liberals) wanted really wasn't feasible at the time". Bush Tax Cuts: all

Obama had to do was do nothing and they would have expired.

Highly feasible.

Fact is the wealthy own the govt.

[TheKentuckian]

38. Yeah, the "didn't have the votes" chatter is evidence of dishonest discussion.

Calling something impossible when you can actually have inaction is pure snake oil.

To my mind keeping about any of the cuts is a flawed and rather sizable compromise, what we did will work to be worse than nothing.

[grahamhgreen]

40. And we can't even get a response! The OP was PWNED!

[BzaDem]

41. What's ACTUALLY evidence of ignorant discussion

was that taking thousands from families at the poverty line was actually a valid and politically feasible option.

In reality, it was this deal now or a much worse Republican house-passed deal passed later. You may think a few grand is not a big deal for someone at poverty, but luckily for most people your opinion is not very relevant to what ends up happening. After all, long after the tax deal passed, 91% of liberal Democrats approve of Obama (which is actually slightly above where it was before the tax deal). If you are looking for "pwned," perhaps you should look in a mirror.

[grahamhgreen]

43. let's stay focused. You stated that what liberals wanted was not feasible, when all it required was

doing nothing.

Obviously, it was feasible to do nothing, you must agree?

[BzaDem]

47. Doing nothing would have resulted in thousands taken away from families at poverty.

In the middle of a recession. Against the wishes of 85% of the American people.

So no. Doing nothing was not politically feasible. There is a difference between politically feasible and physically possible. The latter is necessary for the former to be true, but not sufficient.

(Though I am doubtful that an Obama veto would have been ultimately sustained. After a month of poor and middle class outcry, I wouldn't be surprised if both houses of Congress overrode his veto by a comfortable margin.)

[TheKentuckian]

55. Political feasible and politically popular aren't the same things either. With the system

in place, with the characters, and conditions nothing could have been accomplished.

Doing nothing was possible physically and within the limitations of the political process.

You are not honestly discussing what is feasible as you claim but rather what you perceive to be popular.
Even the veto talk is a distraction since there was nothing to veto prior to Obama cutting the deal. You are free to believe doing nothing was the wrong action but you have jack apple shit to demonstrate that nothing was literally not possible. Sustainable might be a different argument too but possible is the discussion at hand and this one is unassailable since what took place required action.

An object at rest takes a lot more energy than an object in motion to move.

You can only debate your point on the ground of preferable, possible and impossible territory is nonsensical and I would tend to believe misleading, at best.
You not liking the ramifications you expect has nothing to do with limitations to the laws of a physical universe nor what is a possible tact within our political system and environment.

[BzaDem]

42. But see, luckily, the vast majority of America doesn't agree with you.

85% of America wanted the tax cuts for those at 250k and below.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But you shouldn't be surprised when the vast majority disagrees with you about taking thousands from families at the poverty line.

[grahamhgreen]

44. There were no tax cuts on the table, only tax deferments we will have to pay back later - with

interest.

The thing to do was to let the cuts expire, then tax the rich only - at the rates of the greatest generation - 90+%. That's what made the country so great back in the day.

[BzaDem]

45. Your proposal would take thousands away from families at poverty, and the tax increases for the rich

wouldn't pass Congress.

[grahamhgreen]

46. No, not taxing the rich is what is forcing the poor to pay more than their fair share of taxes.

[BzaDem]

48. No, that's actually blatently false.

Tax rates on both groups are set at whatever Congress passes. It is factually false to say one depends on the other outside of what Congress wishes. If nothing happens, thousands will be taken from families at poverty, no matter how many statements you make to the contrary.

[grahamhgreen]

50. Tax rates on the wealthy used to be 94%, now they are 15-27%, nominally,

I believe.

Where will the shortfall come from if not from the rest of us?

[TheKentuckian]

54. Popularity of a position says absolutely nothing about it being viable, sensible, or productive.

I don't get your locking onto polls all the time (except when they don't support your position) when we are discussing if a policy will be beneficial.

Do you just "think" whatever polls well at a given time or what?

[treestar]

35. That really does sum it up

If you find extreme righties, they always think the media is liberal, too.

And the same sentiment as in "McCain lost because he was not conservative enough." Maybe some Republican said they'll vote for the real Democrat every time? :rofl:

And the same disdain for our system (while claiming to be supportive of the Constitution) because it does not allow the President untrammeled power. The same desire for the President to bully the majority into what a minority wants.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Lots of questionable statements, but THIS is spot on:

Democrats find it hard to believe, but conservative activists think that Republicans are the ones always caving, that Democrats are more apt to find tricky ways to use rules to their advantage, and so on. The Iron Law doesn't mean that in fact the two sides are always exactly equal in these things, but it does explain most of the perceived differences (from both sides).

Go look up FreeRepublic's reaction to DADT repeal if you don't believe me. Egads.

[mmonk]

39. I do not view Democratic politicians as liberal. They also actually help

perpetuate the lies and myths of the right. Our nation has created labels, but those labels no longer make much sense because of the distortions (deliberate by corporate interests).

[Number23]

49. Love you for trying. Though sometimes I wonder why anyone still bothers