Question for Democrats and liberals

[Specop 007]

So this question is really directed at the Left leaning members of the board. Some time ago, on the order of decades, the Republican party started to veer off a bit from what was generally agreed to be the Republican beliefs. Promote business, free market, smaller government, all of that. The term RINO (Republican In Name Only) was coined to describe those who ran on the R ticket but werent, really, Republican in their actions or how they voted.

It got to the point where the true conservatives felt they had been sold out and betrayed by the Republican politicians.

Looking at the current climate of Democrats I have to wonder if a similar detachment between beliefs and actions isnt happening on the "Other Side" as well.

So to the Democrats and liberals, do you feel as if the Democrats you voted for and supported have not held true to the Democratic beliefs? Do you feel sold out by those you supported?

 

[heyheybooboo]

What was the question, again ?





--

 

[Robor]

So this question is really directed at the Left leaning members of the board. Some time ago, on the order of decades, the Republican party started to veer off a bit from what was generally agreed to be the Republican beliefs. Promote business, free market, smaller government, all of that. The term RINO (Republican In Name Only) was coined to describe those who ran on the R ticket but werent, really, Republican in their actions or how they voted.

It got to the point where the true conservatives felt they had been sold out and betrayed by the Republican politicians.

Looking at the current climate of Democrats I have to wonder if a similar detachment between beliefs and actions isnt happening on the "Other Side" as well.

So to the Democrats and liberals, do you feel as if the Democrats you voted for and supported have not held true to the Democratic beliefs? Do you feel sold out by those you supported?

Name me the last 'true' republican who didn't deficit spend and expand government.

To answer your question in a word. Yes. The number one problem in the country right now is the economy and NOTHING has been done to prevent another crash. Where is the regulation? Why are the people steering the ship the sames ones who crashed it the first time?

 

[Moonbeam]

In order to feel sold out you have to have beliefs that are shattered, that in this case something good would come of electing Democrats.

There was, in my opinion, only one party that had any potential to bring change and that was the Democrats. The Republicans demonstrated what they could do by destroying the country under Bush. We may now be too far gone to recover.

But at any rate, there was no chance at all that a third party would win so that left only the Democrats as the source of any hope no matter how slim.

Now you add to that, the fact that Americans, like everybody else in the world, hate themselves, then and only then can you begin to appreciate the magnitude of the problem. The thing about self hate is that it is self destructive. So it doesn't make much difference, really, who is in power since the self hate will be at work to destroy any possible good.

The situation, as the Germans in the WW1 trenches announced, is 'hopeless but not serious'.

There is really only hope for the individual, the one who can get free of his own hate, and naturally there is also no hope there, because folk don't have the faintest idea that that is their state.

So there is no hope at all and thus a seer can't be disappointed by anything.

But you have to remember that to be free of self hate is to be God, so God really does exist. It is what we can become and what we were meant to be. So there will always, as long as new children are born, be this desire for perfection. It is what we are and do not know we are.

And it creates this longing and this terrible yearning. We so so so what to be loved and do not know that all our emptiness will disappear not when we are loved but when we ourselves love.

 

[Carmen813]

I'm fairly happy with the House and Obama. I'm less happy with the Senate, because there are obvious shenanigans going on.

Like Pelosi or hate her, she is a good speaker. She managed to get votes to pass Cap and Trade, Health Care Reform, the Stimulus Bill, a second jobs bill, and financial reform. Those are all left-leaning policies, and while some of them are not "far left" (despite what some forum members here say) they are steps in what I feel to be the correct direction.

Those who voted for Obama expecting an extremely left political agenda did not pay attention to his record in the Illinois Senate. He governs as a pragmatist.

Take health care. Obama is on the record for wanting single payer, but there was never a serious push for it. The House Bill was in my opinion a moderate left health care reform bill. It contained a modest public option and necessary reforms. The Senate bill is less ideal, mainly because several Senators decided they wanted to be King-Makers.

Overall I'd give Obama a B for his first year, the House a B+, and the Senate a C-.

 

[Robor]

I'm fairly happy with the House and Obama. I'm less happy with the Senate, because there are obvious shenanigans going on.

Like Pelosi or hate her, she is a good speaker. She managed to get votes to pass Cap and Trade, Health Care Reform, the Stimulus Bill, a second jobs bill, and financial reform. Those are all left-leaning policies, and while some of them are not "far left" (despite what some forum members here say) they are steps in what I feel to be the correct direction.

Those who voted for Obama expecting an extremely left political agenda did not pay attention to his record in the Illinois Senate. He governs as a pragmatist.

Take health care. Obama is on the record for wanting single payer, but there was never a serious push for it. The House Bill was in my opinion a moderate left health care reform bill. It contained a modest public option and necessary reforms. The Senate bill is less ideal, mainly because several Senators decided they wanted to be King-Makers.

Overall I'd give Obama a B for his first year, the House a B+, and the Senate a C-.

QFT... Here's more bad (but not unexpected) news... Government health insurance option appears doomed

 

[Specop 007]

What was the question, again ?





--

Do you feel your Partys members accurately support your Partys beliefs

 

[Specop 007]

Name me the last 'true' republican who didn't deficit spend and expand government.

To answer your question in a word. Yes. The number one problem in the country right now is the economy and NOTHING has been done to prevent another crash. Where is the regulation? Why are the people steering the ship the sames ones who crashed it the first time?

I'm not wanting to have a "Look what Republicans did!" thread. I stated in my first post that the Republican politicians didnt hold true to Republican beliefs. This is nothing new in fact, its not like it has only been in the past few years Republicans have pushed increased spending and expansion of government.

But that was never really a conservative ideal. It falls more in line with a liberal ideal in my opinion. But even that is outside the scope of the original question.

 

[Jaskalas]

Do you feel your Partys members accurately support your Partys beliefs

A party is defined by its members, no?

This is more along the lines of "Has your party betrayed the values it proclaimed while it garnered your vote?"

 

[CaptnKirk]

In order for anyone to win an election, they must win 50% of the vote - plus one more vote.
If a party base only makes up a total of 20% of the population, they cannot run for the pleasure of that strict group beyond the Primaries.
When they win a Primary, they have to shift into the middle of the spectrum in order to gain voters from outside of the base, or they will be defeated.

It doesn't matter wheather they are the 20% that make up the 'Conservative Base' or the 'Liberal Base',
there remains 60% of the population that lives outside of the strict philosophy of their respective base voters.
If the candidate does not return to a central agenda that can attract an additional 30% - plus one into their camp they are going to loose.

And there stands the trap of being too 'Liberal' or exercising the extreme charades of the 'Tea-Party.
You cannot alienate those voters who may be willing to compromise, by purging a party to putify their cause . . .'
cause if you do your future inbreds have no apeal or future.

 

[Carmen813]

In order for anyone to win an election, they must win 50% of the vote - plus one more vote.
If a party base only makes up a total of 20% of the population, they cannot run for the pleasure of that strict group beyond the Primaries.
When they win a Primary, they have to shift into the middle of the spectrum in order to gain voters from outside of the base, or they will be defeated.

It doesn't matter wheather they are the 20% that make up the 'Conservative Base' or the 'Liberal Base',
there remains 60% of the population that lives outside of the strict philosophy of their respective base voters.
If the candidate does not return to a central agenda that can attract an additional 30% - plus one into their camp they are going to loose.

And there stands the trap of being too 'Liberal' or exercising the extreme charades of the 'Tea-Party.
You cannot alienate those voters who may be willing to compromise, by purging a party to putify their cause . . .'
cause if you do your future inbreds have no apeal or future.

Not necessarily 50%+1...look at Clinton's first Presidential election. The base is most important for one thing: Funding.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Not necessarily 50%+1...look at Clinton's first Presidential election. The base is most important for one thing: Funding.

Perot split the middle, and diluted the majority target number, by default he won because of lack of coalesance to a mainstream.
If perot had not been there he still would have won, maybe by an even bigger margin.
They sure didn't fall in to support Bob 'Woodie' Dole did they?

Same, in a much more deceptive skew was Nader's dilution of Gore's margin - he won the popular vote,
but in some states Nader siphoned off enough votes to pertubate the tally totals.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't feel qualified to speak for "true Democrats", since everyone is entitled to their own political beliefs. But on many issues, I do feel that I'm way to the left of the Democratic party. That said, I don't feel "betrayed", because I don't think the Democratic party has misled me into thinking they stood for something they don't. I think they could take a lot of their positions farther, but that's just personal choice. Overall, I think they've stayed relatively true to their stated goals.

I really don't think there is a lot of comparison with the Republican party here. The Republicans don't just moderate Republican beliefs, they seem to conveniently abandon them. Things like small government and personal freedoms are not even on their radar, except when it comes to nice, cheap words. They have, however, clearly stated that they are the party of the socially conservative now, and in that sense they've been remarkably true to their word.

 

[stateofbeasley]

So to the Democrats and liberals, do you feel as if the Democrats you voted for and supported have not held true to the Democratic beliefs? Do you feel sold out by those you supported?

I am pleased with the actions of the Democrats I have voted for.

The people who feel "sold out" are the delusional people who ignored everything Obama said about Afghanistan during the '08 campaign and who don't realize that the Democratic party is a "big tent" that does not lean far left overall.

I agree with winding down Iraq and making an honest effort in Afghanistan. I agree with a health insurance mandate paired with no discrimination against prior conditions and I don't see the need for a public option so long as there is an insurance pool to provide competition. I think the stimulus package was money well spent to keep state and municipal governments from collapsing.

Could the Democrats do better?

Of course they could, but legislating has been a messy business for the past few centuries, and I don't expect to get the best outcome right away. Get something basically good out the door, and refine it as necessary.

 

[Ozoned]

But on many issues, I do feel that I'm way to the left of the Democratic party.

Careful there. Heh, heh. You go to far to the left, and you end up as a neo-conservative.

 

[Craig234]

So this question is really directed at the Left leaning members of the board. Some time ago, on the order of decades, the Republican party started to veer off a bit from what was generally agreed to be the Republican beliefs. Promote business, free market, smaller government, all of that. The term RINO (Republican In Name Only) was coined to describe those who ran on the R ticket but werent, really, Republican in their actions or how they voted.

It got to the point where the true conservatives felt they had been sold out and betrayed by the Republican politicians.

Looking at the current climate of Democrats I have to wonder if a similar detachment between beliefs and actions isnt happening on the "Other Side" as well.

So to the Democrats and liberals, do you feel as if the Democrats you voted for and supported have not held true to the Democratic beliefs? Do you feel sold out by those you supported?

First, if you aren't aware I've said this about the Democratic party for years, over and over, why?

I'll repeat my position:

The Republican party has purged itself of its liberals, and now its moderates. It's a whore party, not frankly - some out of choice, some out of greed, some out of necessity for political survival.

That's not quite what you mistakenly remember the party as. There is a corruption that's always been there, but is now exaggerated and dominant. In short, it seems a pretty lost cause.

Democrats have had a similar invasion. The same powers that keep increasing their power and dominance over goverment that took charge over the Republicans, are hardly oblivious to the Democrats - if they can do the same there, they egt both choices and the American people lose. These interests are mostly the corporotocracy and rich class, the 'screw the American people, give us the freedom to profit from wrong, transferred wealth upward, low taxes on the rich, repeal the middle class's rise' people.

And they have long made inroads to the Democrats. They didn't have much influence with Carter, but by Clinton, they sort of told him who's boss, and he looked at the situation and caved. There's been a "DLC" wing in the party that embraces this corporate alliance - it's the front of the war to drive out liberals and become the sister part to the Republicans that the Republicans were when they drove out their members not on the same page.

In my opinion, the well being of US politics largely rests on this battle - the real war between the corporatist interests, who really are winning heavily, and the public interest.

This is why I say over and over how people need to support the progressives, who are the only major faction standing up to the corruption.

The answer to your post is 'yes, I see that'. Yes, I'm disappointed in Obama and the corporatist Dems, and at how well the corporatists are spreading - not only against the progressives but against the public.

Third parties are all but impossible to get anywhere without rule changes not likely anytime soon. All they can do at best is defeat the arty they're closer to by splitting the vote.

 

[Craig234]

Careful there. Heh, heh. You go to far to the left, and you end up as a neo-conservative.

No, you don't.

 

[ShawnD1]

So to the Democrats and liberals, do you feel as if the Democrats you voted for and supported have not held true to the Democratic beliefs? Do you feel sold out by those you supported?

Pretty much. The democrats are supposed to be the hippie liberals who fight for the little guy, but they sure suck at doing this. Credit card regulations? Healthcare? They haven't done anything productive. They didn't pull out of the war, they didn't try to roll back the unpopular things Bush did (see: Obama's idea of "prolonged detention").

Both parties are absolutely atrocious. The republicans say they'll cut spending, and they never do. The democrats say they'll regulate things, and they never do.

 

[Craig234]

Not necessarily 50%+1...look at Clinton's first Presidential election. The base is most important for one thing: Funding.

No, the the masses are important for their votes. More and more, the funding, which delivers those votes, is from the few big money interests.

Remember what I've quoted:

Politicians have to LOOK good to voters, and DO good for donors.

 

[Craig234]

Pretty much. The democrats are supposed to be the hippie liberals who fight for the little guy, but they sure suck at doing this. Credit card regulations? Healthcare? They haven't done anything productive. They didn't pull out of the war, they didn't try to roll back the unpopular things Bush did (see: Obama's idea of "prolonged detention").

Both parties are absolutely atrocious. The republicans say they'll cut spending, and they never do. The democrats say they'll regulate things, and they never do.

No, the progressive democrats don't suck at it. They're better than any other faction.

For example, they PASSED a repeal of the corrupt 'no negotiating drug prices' rule of Medicare Part D. The Corporatist Senate killed it.

For example, they PASSED a stronger bank reform bill and sent it to the Senate. The corporatist Senated gutted it.

But some people are not paying attention to wo is voting for their interests. 'All Democrats are the same'.

 

[Rainsford]

Careful there. Heh, heh. You go to far to the left, and you end up as a neo-conservative.

Well that makes zero sense...but whatever. In any case, I'd say my political beliefs are about the polar opposite of neo-conservative.

 

[Rainsford]

It's not exactly the topic, but I also think it's worth noting that I feel this is less of a problem for Democrats than it is for Republicans. To me, Democrats always felt like the big-tent party. I might not agree with Democrats on everything, but overall I think we share a similar ideology and I feel comfortable calling myself a liberal Democrat.

On the other hand, I get the feeling that either you're a Bush Republican, or you're irrelevant in the Republican party. I know plenty of people who call themselves Republicans despite disagreeing with a lot of Republican positions, but I honestly can't picture myself feeling comfortable doing so.

 

[OrByte]

The Democratic party is a herd of cats. You will never see the type of uniform support on issues like how the republicans do.

That being said, no one in the party is ever truely satisfied. And I think that is to be expected.

I think the party is functioning like the party always does. I think having the super majority in congress like they do now, it exposes just how segmented and dysfunctional the Dem party is. But who is really surprised by that?

 

[lothar]

I never new Lieberman was a prominent member of the DLC.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (Chairman 1995 - 2001)

What "hawkish" position did he have before Iraq?

 

[n yusef]

I'm frustrated with most Democratic politicians but I like my representative, Mike Capuano, and most other progressives.