Author Topic: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent  (Read 740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 246,070
Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« on: March 21, 2014, 11:28:44 AM »
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/daily-kos-democrats-moderates-104817_full.html?print

Kos Folds Up the Big Tent

By MATT BENNETT and JIM KESSLER

March 19, 2014

If Markos Moulitsas had his way there’d be no Affordable Care Act, no Dodd-Frank, no economic stimulus package. That’s the price when purity tests are applied to Democrats.

In a remarkable post yesterday, Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the progressive community site DailyKos, celebrates the departure from the Senate of 10 moderate Democrats over the last decade, and makes clear his hope that Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) lose their tough reelection battles this year. He doesn’t name some other moderates in tight races, like Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), but his logic suggests that he’d be only too happy to say goodbye to them as well.

Moulitsas cares passionately about progressive politics, and he is a very savvy political observer—he knows that we must have Democratic majorities in Congress to make real progress, and that to create those majorities we must have Democrats win in red states like Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana and North Carolina. Surely he can see that such Democrats must be somewhat different than the full-throated progressives that he name-checks in his essay.

Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel understood that fact. As the chairmen of the DSCC and DCCC respectively, they aggressively recruited moderate leaders in red states and districts in 2006, and those moderates made Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House and Harry Reid Senate majority leader.

The majorities those moderates helped create made possible the progress of Barack Obama’s first term. Without them, the president would have been unable to reverse our slide toward depression with the stimulus, extend stable and secure health care coverage to all with the ACA, reform the worst abuses of the financial services sector with Dodd-Frank, remove the scourge of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from the military or pass a sensible immigration reform bill through the Senate.

A charge implicit in the Moulitsas post is that moderate Democrats lack political courage—that they would do the right thing if only they were brave enough. This just doesn’t withstand scrutiny. We actually sat in meetings with Senate moderates during the darkest days of the ACA deliberations. They knew that voting for the bill could send them to the Valley of the Doomed, and for many it did or still could. They put their careers on the line and took that vote anyway—every single moderate named in the piece who was still in the Senate voted for the ACA. So did those unnamed, like Senators Begich and Hagan. That is political courage.

It was laudable, but hardly courageous, for a Democrat from a blue state to have voted for the ACA. The last time a Democratic Senate incumbent lost in New York was 1899, and in Massachusetts it was 1947. They don’t stare political death in the face on any vote, ever. The moderates do.

Moulitsas might have a stronger case if the moderates he abhors were replaced by more liberal members. But almost every instance saw the opposite result. Of the 10 former Democratic senators that Moulitsas identifies, seven were replaced by Republicans, one by Montanan John Walsh, who is in a fight for his political life this year, and another by Democrat Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who is unlikely to make the DailyKos Pantheon of Progressiveness. Just one, Joe Lieberman, of midnight-blue Connecticut, was succeeded by someone to his left. Meanwhile, the moderate Democrats in tough fights this cycle are running against Tea Party true believers.

Democrats across the spectrum agree on far more than we disagree—almost all supported President Obama’s key initiatives, including universal health care and fundamental immigration reform. Most support new gun safety laws, marriage for gay couples and a vigorous federal response to climate change. Yet for some, that’s not pure enough.

If we are to make progress in a divided Washington—and if we are to protect the Democratic Senate majority—we simply must embrace a big tent for the Democratic Party. Even in purple states, there are not enough self-identified liberals to elect Democrats without their winning significant pluralities or majorities of moderates. The idea that more liberal candidates could win in places like Arkansas, Indiana or Alaska is pure fantasy. And to write off those states would consign Democrats to long-term congressional minority status.

We have all witnessed the devastating effect that the politics of purity can have, as the Republicans grapple with the toxic impact of the Tea Party on their candidates, their congressional leadership and their governing philosophy. Let’s not become them.

Support the USO

Offline Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,962
  • This is a terrible support group
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2014, 03:54:28 AM »
Quote
Let’s not become them.

Exit stage left rat. 

Good Lord!  How much of a nut bag kook do you have to be, to believe the problem with the rat party is they are not liberal enough.  That is insane.

Quote
Of the 10 former Democratic senators that Moulitsas identifies, seven were replaced by Republicans, one by Montanan John Walsh, who is in a fight for his political life this year, and another by Democrat Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who is unlikely to make the DailyKos Pantheon of Progressiveness. Just one, Joe Lieberman, of midnight-blue Connecticut, was succeeded by someone to his left. Meanwhile, the moderate Democrats in tough fights this cycle are running against Tea Party true believers.

Moulitsas is willing to trade 10 DINOs for 7 Republicans, a washout, another DINO, and a "real" liberal rat.  I think we can all agree Moulitsas is a moron.  I would be happy to join him in celebration when the GOP takes the AK, AR, LA, and NC Senate races.  Cheers Marky :beer: You're the best rat a Republican could wish for.  S.W.A.K.
Dana Loesch ‏@DLoesch
“Hollywood is the most vilified,” says Meryl.

“Sorry for your struggle,” said all the unborn babies and cops killed in 2016. #DanaRadio

Offline R4 TrumPence

  • Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,422
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2014, 05:57:15 AM »
Exit stage left rat. 

Good Lord!  How much of a nut bag kook do you have to be, to believe the problem with the rat party is they are not liberal enough.  That is insane.

Moulitsas is willing to trade 10 DINOs for 7 Republicans, a washout, another DINO, and a "real" liberal rat.  I think we can all agree Moulitsas is a moron.  I would be happy to join him in celebration when the GOP takes the AK, AR, LA, and NC Senate races.  Cheers Marky :beer: You're the best rat a Republican could wish for.  S.W.A.K.

I ran into  few lib friends at dinner tonight. A couple are not voting in Nov, and the others are voting repub.  The Obamacare lies being the reason.. This is in NC!


I am Repub4Bush on FR '02

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,703
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2014, 12:04:03 PM »
Exit stage left rat. 

Good Lord!  How much of a nut bag kook do you have to be, to believe the problem with the rat party is they are not liberal enough.  That is insane.

Moulitsas is willing to trade 10 DINOs for 7 Republicans, a washout, another DINO, and a "real" liberal rat.  I think we can all agree Moulitsas is a moron.  I would be happy to join him in celebration when the GOP takes the AK, AR, LA, and NC Senate races.  Cheers Marky :beer: You're the best rat a Republican could wish for.  S.W.A.K.


Let me be the one to take the article to it's logical conclusion for republicans/conservatives:  this is what a purity test looks like from the outside, and if one believes the democrats/liberals are being idiotic (notwithstanding how much we hope they continue down this path of idiocy), then one is logically obligated to agree that purity tests for republicans are equally idiotic and, moreoever, that the purity tests we have used to-date, which have, in fact, resulted in our trading some RINOs for a democrat, have done nothing more than consign republicans, in the authors' words, "to long-term congressional minority status."
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 12:04:35 PM by Oceander »

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,317
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2014, 12:25:48 PM »

Let me be the one to take the article to it's logical conclusion for republicans/conservatives:  this is what a purity test looks like from the outside, and if one believes the democrats/liberals are being idiotic (notwithstanding how much we hope they continue down this path of idiocy), then one is logically obligated to agree that purity tests for republicans are equally idiotic and, moreoever, that the purity tests we have used to-date, which have, in fact, resulted in our trading some RINOs for a democrat, have done nothing more than consign republicans, in the authors' words, "to long-term congressional minority status."

There is a qualitative difference between a "purity test" on one hand, and a desire for philosophical alignment on the other.

Whereas many of today's Democrat leaders routinely march in North Korean Army-parade lockstep, I have heard few, if any voices on the Right demanding the same kind of singular ideological commitment.

What I have heard more frequently is a desire for Republican leaders to express a shared belief in First Principles and to stand by them when it matters. There are many things about which reasonable and honorable people may disagree, and about which they must be also free to debate.

An enthusiasm for ideas and for the open discussion of them is a hallmark not of ideological rigidity, but of freedom. And even amidst such free expression, it is not wrong for people to expect and even demand that their chosen representatives share with them a set of common assumptions and values.

The perils of party and the dangers of faction remain with us, just as they did in the time of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and in fact, just as they predicted. But it is also natural and desirable for the purpose of effective governance that people who share a philosophy of governance be free to both express such beliefs and to associate themselves with political representatives of them, while being equally free to criticize those who do not.     
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,703
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2014, 12:37:57 PM »
There is a qualitative difference between a "purity test" on one hand, and a desire for philosophical alignment on the other.

Whereas many of today's Democrat leaders routinely march in North Korean Army-parade lockstep, I have heard few, if any voices on the Right demanding the same kind of singular ideological commitment.

What I have heard more frequently is a desire for Republican leaders to express a shared belief in First Principles and to stand by them when it matters. There are many things about which reasonable and honorable people may disagree, and about which they must be also free to debate.

An enthusiasm for ideas and for the open discussion of them is a hallmark not of ideological rigidity, but of freedom. And even amidst such free expression, it is not wrong for people to expect and even demand that their chosen representatives share with them a set of common assumptions and values.

The perils of party and the dangers of faction remain with us, just as they did in the time of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and in fact, just as they predicted. But it is also natural and desirable for the purpose of effective governance that people who share a philosophy of governance be free to both express such beliefs and to associate themselves with political representatives of them, while being equally free to criticize those who do not.     


Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.  So-called "true conservatives" want just as much lock-step ideological conformity as do the hard-left democrats.

we'll just have to agree to disagree; as far as I can see, there is a concerted effort from the right end of the spectrum to narrow the GOP to just so-called "true conservatives" and that is a purity test, no matter what other linguistic fig-leaves you wish to dress it up in.

I'll put it this way:  the moderates, principally the moderate leadership, are engaged in a stupid, short-sighted attempt to squelch too many objectors from the right, but the conservative right is engaged in a suicidal attempt to sever all moderates from the party, with full knowledge that doing so will lead to surrendering some current republican seats in Congress to democrats.

Unless everyone - moderates and conservatives - can pick up Rand Paul's challenge and figure out how to agree to disagree, then the only thing the tea partiers and conservative republicans will have succeeded in doing is saving the democrats/liberals from their own worst impulses toward purity testing.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 12:38:45 PM by Oceander »

Offline Olivia

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2014, 01:00:50 PM »
I ran into  few lib friends at dinner tonight. A couple are not voting in Nov, and the others are voting repub.  The Obamacare lies being the reason.. This is in NC!

Hopefully, Obama loving, Union kissing Kay Hagan is on her way out!
Truthfully, the most important thing in life is knowing what the most important things in life are, and prioritizing them accordingly.   Melchor Lim

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,317
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2014, 01:09:03 PM »

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.  So-called "true conservatives" want just as much lock-step ideological conformity as do the hard-left democrats.

we'll just have to agree to disagree; as far as I can see, there is a concerted effort from the right end of the spectrum to narrow the GOP to just so-called "true conservatives" and that is a purity test, no matter what other linguistic fig-leaves you wish to dress it up in.

I'll put it this way:  the moderates, principally the moderate leadership, are engaged in a stupid, short-sighted attempt to squelch too many objectors from the right, but the conservative right is engaged in a suicidal attempt to sever all moderates from the party, with full knowledge that doing so will lead to surrendering some current republican seats in Congress to democrats.

Unless everyone - moderates and conservatives - can pick up Rand Paul's challenge and figure out how to agree to disagree, then the only thing the tea partiers and conservative republicans will have succeeded in doing is saving the democrats/liberals from their own worst impulses toward purity testing.

I disagree. There is a difference between a demand for "purity" on the part of one's leaders and a desire for them to actually believe in something worth defending.

That difference is effectively squelched by the common use of the word "moderate", precisely as you have employed it here.

What does it mean to be "moderate" in today's political parties? Does it mean believing in something, but in not too much of it?  Does it refer to those who believe in some fixed principles, but not in others? Does it claim a mantle of "reasonableness" by agreeing not to oppose the policies of one's adversaries, but rather to endeavor only to slow their implementation?  Does it presume the intellectual superiority of claiming a belief in a set of ideas, while practically adopting the assumptions of their opponents?

Today's political "moderation" is all of the above, I would argue.

America is divided, and with good reason. We are faced with two diametrically opposed and incompatible visions of government, and of the philosophy that defines the principles inherent in them.  We are going to have to chose which will direct our nation, and in that respect there is no more middle ground.

As I said earlier, we can and may well differ freely on many, many things as a people and a nation, and still live peaceably, side by side. But the fundamental purpose and role of government cannot be one of them. Lincoln spoke once about a house divided against itself. He was right then, and his words are true today.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,703
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2014, 01:30:14 PM »
"Moderate" is, generally speaking, someone who realizes that you can have some of what you want, or none of what you want, but that you cannot have all of what you want and, accordingly, that you have to prioritize your goals, decide what the cost of compromise on each is, and stick to it.  Reagan was a moderate, he was not a conservative, certainly not as the term "conservative" is now defined by those who have assumed the mantle.

Does that mean that all "moderates" are good people and good politicians?  No, it doesn't.  Moderates occupy a spectrum as well, and at the far end includes those who sit on-center and who, depending on circumstance and their local constituency, could be either republican or democrat.  There are, in fact, a few democrats who are slightly to the right of a few republicans.  Further, due to the nature of compromise, it is much easier for opportunists to exist as moderates while for the most part pursuing their own idiosyncratic agendas.

But that only states (a part of) the "problem" if you will.  What's the "solution," particularly for those who sit farther out on the political spectrum?  I would argue that the solution is constructive engagement with the moderates with the aim of realigning their prioritization of political goals, but that can only be accomplished if one is willing to (a) engage in one's own prioritization of goals, (b) offer in good faith the carrot of support, of willingness to vote for the moderate, and (c) in particular, to take it on faith that if the moderate is supported and wins that the moderate will in good faith push for at least some of the more important goals of the farther right, or else will explain why those goals must be compromised on, the degree to which they must be compromised on, and what is expected in return for that compromise.

And there is one other sine qua non for the continued relevance of the far right:  getting over themselves, facing up to reality, and ceasing to waste so much political capital on issues and goals that will never, ever be accomplished.  I'm sorry to break the news to you, but getting rid of abortion is utterly unreal; it will never, ever happen so you might as well start dealing with that fact.  Given that, it is only rational that moderates will give short shrift to conservatives and right-wingers who continue to insist that anti-abortion be front and center in the GOP's political platform.

I would also add something else:  rank and file conservatives, right-wingers love to come out at election time and make a hullaballoo about their various hot buttons and bete noir, and then disappear back into the woodwork not to be heard from again until the next election.  That makes the threats from conservatives if their issues aren't addressed rather empty because the moderate who happens to be in office is entitled to think that his or her constituents agree with him or her if he doesn't hear from them at all.  And "hearing" from them doesn't mean the occasional letter, it means getting together into organizations, putting out positinos, button-holing people on the street - in short all of the things that democrats/liberals have done for years (and which, I would add, many conservatives deride them for; derision may be fun, but it turns sour when those you deride end up getting the better of you).

Most of what I've seen, however, doesn't bear any resemblance to that.  Mr. Cruz, for all his fireness, hasn't engaged constructively with GOP leadership and, in fact, from what I've read, has slapped away some of the proffers of engagement he's received.  In the world of politics that is, to use my grandmother's felicitous term, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

As I'm quite sure you'll find all of that anathema, I'll just say so-be-it in advance; the most I can do is attempt to persuade.


Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,317
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2014, 02:48:39 PM »
"Moderate" is, generally speaking, someone who realizes that you can have some of what you want, or none of what you want, but that you cannot have all of what you want and, accordingly, that you have to prioritize your goals, decide what the cost of compromise on each is, and stick to it.  Reagan was a moderate, he was not a conservative, certainly not as the term "conservative" is now defined by those who have assumed the mantle.

Does that mean that all "moderates" are good people and good politicians?  No, it doesn't.  Moderates occupy a spectrum as well, and at the far end includes those who sit on-center and who, depending on circumstance and their local constituency, could be either republican or democrat.  There are, in fact, a few democrats who are slightly to the right of a few republicans.  Further, due to the nature of compromise, it is much easier for opportunists to exist as moderates while for the most part pursuing their own idiosyncratic agendas.

But that only states (a part of) the "problem" if you will.  What's the "solution," particularly for those who sit farther out on the political spectrum?  I would argue that the solution is constructive engagement with the moderates with the aim of realigning their prioritization of political goals, but that can only be accomplished if one is willing to (a) engage in one's own prioritization of goals, (b) offer in good faith the carrot of support, of willingness to vote for the moderate, and (c) in particular, to take it on faith that if the moderate is supported and wins that the moderate will in good faith push for at least some of the more important goals of the farther right, or else will explain why those goals must be compromised on, the degree to which they must be compromised on, and what is expected in return for that compromise.

And there is one other sine qua non for the continued relevance of the far right:  getting over themselves, facing up to reality, and ceasing to waste so much political capital on issues and goals that will never, ever be accomplished.  I'm sorry to break the news to you, but getting rid of abortion is utterly unreal; it will never, ever happen so you might as well start dealing with that fact.  Given that, it is only rational that moderates will give short shrift to conservatives and right-wingers who continue to insist that anti-abortion be front and center in the GOP's political platform.

I would also add something else:  rank and file conservatives, right-wingers love to come out at election time and make a hullaballoo about their various hot buttons and bete noir, and then disappear back into the woodwork not to be heard from again until the next election.  That makes the threats from conservatives if their issues aren't addressed rather empty because the moderate who happens to be in office is entitled to think that his or her constituents agree with him or her if he doesn't hear from them at all.  And "hearing" from them doesn't mean the occasional letter, it means getting together into organizations, putting out positinos, button-holing people on the street - in short all of the things that democrats/liberals have done for years (and which, I would add, many conservatives deride them for; derision may be fun, but it turns sour when those you deride end up getting the better of you).

Most of what I've seen, however, doesn't bear any resemblance to that.  Mr. Cruz, for all his fireness, hasn't engaged constructively with GOP leadership and, in fact, from what I've read, has slapped away some of the proffers of engagement he's received.  In the world of politics that is, to use my grandmother's felicitous term, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

As I'm quite sure you'll find all of that anathema, I'll just say so-be-it in advance; the most I can do is attempt to persuade.

I don't find what you say to be "anathema", in any respect.  I just find it misses the point.

What you seem to define as "moderation" or the condition of being moderate is instead better defined as "realism". In order to succeed in any complex endeavor, it is necessary to prioritize your goals. As a practical matter it means being willing to compromise on strategy, tactics, and timetables, and knowing when and where to pick your battles.

The fact is, Progressives have done this extraordinarily well for many years. It does not make them any less radical.

And that is my point. A willingness to bargain and compromise is not wrong in and of itself. Far from it. Negotiation and strategizing are often necessary in order to achieve one's goals. But first, you must know what your goals are, and be certain that they reflect your principles so that the outcome proves desirable.

In our modern political context, Republican moderate leaders seem uninformed by any goal other than staying in office or else obtaining highly-remunerative positions owing to their perceived influence in government.  If they believe in what the GOP platform claims to stand for - limited government, strong national defense, low taxes, free enterprise, secure borders, and a natural right to life - you certainly could not tell by most of their actions.

On the other side, the Left knows exactly what it wants - statism, specifically, collectivism generally, a centrally-managed economy, and obeisance to international law as superior to our own Constitution. They routinely do whatever is necessary to achieve these goals, and their actions in turn reflect their principles, so for example, the ubiquitous telling of untruths has become a common means of obtaining what they view as desirable ends.

When Progressives set out to destroy each and every one of the mediating institutions of Western civilization - families, communities, churches, fraternal memberships and associations, private charities among them - they understood precisely what they were doing. Removing the natural barriers between the individual and the State creates social disorder and dependency, a void into which the State and its proponents never miss an opportunity to intrude.

Many Republicans at the national level understand none of this. They are playing marbles while their enemies are playing three-dimensional chess. They think that the Left will be satiated by compromise, but they will not, ever. Because as long as they keep moving the needle ever leftward with each new battle, the Left knows they will win.

The Tea Party represents more than just a populist uprising against a corrupt power structure. It represents the beginning of a cultural awakening. People know there is something fundamentally wrong in America, but are frequently confused about what it is, or what to do about it. But "culture" is in fact, the answer. We need to change the culture, and that will take time - a great deal of time.

Along the way, compromise will be necessary - compromise on strategy and tactics and timetables. But first we need leaders who understand, and who can express and explain shared principles upon which they will never compromise, principles such as those found in our Constitution: life, liberty, the right to property, and to free speech and self-defense. In this effort, we will require not just a conservative/libertarian political party, but our own news media, schools and social institutions to counter those now fully-owned by the Left.

And we will need one more thing, more important than any other: the courage of our convictions.

Because it's about to get rough out there.

Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline speekinout

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,337
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2014, 05:15:24 PM »
It's foolish on both sides to try to nominate only the purest candidates. It isn't just the politicians who have varying beliefs all along the scale from far right to far left; the electorate has the same range of beliefs. Some states are clearly to one side of the spectrum, some are way over on the other, but most states fall somewhere in the middle. Neither side can get much of what they want accomplished unless they have the majority of elected offices. The only way to do that is to attract the voters in the state where the candidate is running.
All campaigns have to be local.

Nothing matters more than getting a GOP led Congress. The majority party is the one that decides which bills come to a vote. And they have more influence in writing the bills than the minority party does. Without majority party status, all the discussion about ideology, compromise, and whatever else is moot.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,703
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2014, 05:50:16 PM »
It's foolish on both sides to try to nominate only the purest candidates. It isn't just the politicians who have varying beliefs all along the scale from far right to far left; the electorate has the same range of beliefs. Some states are clearly to one side of the spectrum, some are way over on the other, but most states fall somewhere in the middle. Neither side can get much of what they want accomplished unless they have the majority of elected offices. The only way to do that is to attract the voters in the state where the candidate is running.
All campaigns have to be local.

Nothing matters more than getting a GOP led Congress. The majority party is the one that decides which bills come to a vote. And they have more influence in writing the bills than the minority party does. Without majority party status, all the discussion about ideology, compromise, and whatever else is moot.

:thumbsup:

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,317
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2014, 06:07:10 PM »
It's foolish on both sides to try to nominate only the purest candidates. It isn't just the politicians who have varying beliefs all along the scale from far right to far left; the electorate has the same range of beliefs. Some states are clearly to one side of the spectrum, some are way over on the other, but most states fall somewhere in the middle. Neither side can get much of what they want accomplished unless they have the majority of elected offices. The only way to do that is to attract the voters in the state where the candidate is running.
All campaigns have to be local.

Nothing matters more than getting a GOP led Congress. The majority party is the one that decides which bills come to a vote. And they have more influence in writing the bills than the minority party does. Without majority party status, all the discussion about ideology, compromise, and whatever else is moot.

Barack Obama was the quite possibly the purest liberal Democrat candidate possible.

Too bad that didn't work out for them.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,703
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2014, 06:15:43 PM »
Barack Obama was the quite possibly the purest liberal Democrat candidate possible.

Too bad that didn't work out for them.

Which is why the republicans should be extremely suspicious of all purity nonsense from the right.

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,317
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2014, 08:30:12 PM »
Which is why the republicans should be extremely suspicious of all purity nonsense from the right.

Yeah. God forbid, we win two elections in a row by appealing to our base.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,703
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2014, 11:10:24 PM »
Yeah. God forbid, we win two elections in a row by appealing to our base.

Appealing to a shrinking minority of one's base is not a recipe for continued electoral success.

Offline Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,962
  • This is a terrible support group
Re: Kos Folds Up the Big Tent
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2014, 03:45:40 AM »
Yeah. God forbid, we win two elections in a row by appealing to our base.


First off I'm really enjoying the conversation between you and Oceander.  I think you both have made forceful arguments for your views.  Thank you both.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14231-gitmo-a-fight-obama-never-had-the-stomach-for
Quote
But, as we've seen with the public option, cap-and-trade, the DISCLOSE Act, the Bush tax cuts, labor struggles in Wisconsin, you name it: when the going gets tough, the president gets going.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/obama-fiscal-cliff-budget-deal-bush-tax-cuts
Quote
The establishment media reported that Obama had lost the showdown; liberal House Democrats and progressives off Capitol Hill complained Obama had turned his back on his promise and blinked. There was grousing that Obama either had no taste for a political battle or no spine (or both) and that he had sold out a fundamental principle.


Which base did Obama appeal to?  The rat Establishment or the Howard Dean "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?"  It has been suggested that the fringe Green Party rats who rejected Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore as not being green enough may have cost him the Presidency in 2000.

Appealing to that base would have cost Obama his re-election in 2012.  That is why he didn't do it.

I suspect you will reject my assertion that the unappeasable leftists, who wanted a single payer health system, and demanded Obama fight battles he could not win are the liberal counter parts to FreedomWorks, Senate Conservative Fund, Club for Growth, and Heritage Action.  They are a suicidal embarrassment in my view.
Dana Loesch ‏@DLoesch
“Hollywood is the most vilified,” says Meryl.

“Sorry for your struggle,” said all the unborn babies and cops killed in 2016. #DanaRadio


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf