The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    acanuck's picture

    Hey, AngryDems! Quit griping; just take back your party

    By acanuck on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 10:03pm |

    I get it. You're angry with the incompetent, self-serving, tone-deaf leadership of the Democratic Party. Just don't try to tell me you're surprised.

    The good news is: the solution is at your fingertips. Channel that anger! It's a midterm election year -- traditional time for throwing out incumbents. Just beat the Republicans to the punch by primarying the asses off all these pseudo-Democratic dickheads. Not all of them, of course. There are at least a handful who stand with and for the common man. But there's a long list of corporatist anti-progressives who can go.

    Don't worry that such a move risks tossing a few seats to the opposition. The legislators you have now weren't about to get any decent legislation passed anyway -- not with a mere 59 seats out of 100. No, that would be "mathematically impossible."

    Be forewarned: it will take a few election cycles before Americans get the Congress they need. But this is the only way. No one said democracy was easy.

    Comments

    So 59-41= mathematically impossible. That news didn't cheer me up.

    But the worst thing to me was seeing the BACKERS of this health care reform TURN AND RUN. I mean, I can understand people who didn't like it turning and running. But the real backers? I'm not sure there's ONE i saw today.

    Doesn't that tell us anything? I mean, where are the great moral crusaders here? Where are the ones CONVINCED it'll save tens of thousands of lives? Surely to God there's one Democratic politician out there who's ready to go to war over this, hurling themselves at the battlements?

    Bah. Primary the lot of 'em. This lot has no heart.


    by quinn esq (not verified) on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 11:12pm

    I'm here in Indiana. I can tell you the options is the primary doesn't really offer much. Bayh is about as good as we get.


    by acamus (not verified) on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 12:14am

    Quinn, is it possible that they got the wrong message, 'cuz I thought it was clear as mud. If you want them to get the message that you want a more liberal agenda, wouldn't it make sense to show that by electing a liberal candidate? Instead, they elect a conservative, and that is supposed to mean they want more liberalsim? It tells me they want a more conservative agenda...how is my thinking flawed?

    It is ass backwards to me to say, we want a more liberal agenda so we are going to give you another conservative to work with, and we are going to keep giving you conservative after conservative until you get more liberal...???

    If you want someone to do something, don't you give them new and better tools to accomplish it, instead of worse ones? Sorta like "the beatings around here will continue until the moral improves?"


    by stillidealistic (not verified) on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 12:46am

    Any election, there are people moving in all directions. The pollsters and strategists will be chewing over how many went which way and why... and how many of them can be recaptured and how... all of that.

    As for sending a signal, you may not LIKE the signal people were trying to send, but there's no question some voters were sending it. They said it in interviews, they said it to pollsters. "If Obama and the Dems are going to govern as a second Republican Party, then we won't be supporting them." YES, it sends another Republican to DC. But it also tells the Democrats that they're NOT SUPPOSED to be so Conservative, and so, they should head back to the Left.

    They may be wrong in doing this, Still. I don't know how Obama and the Dems will move. Right now, I'd say they have to be feeling some real pressure to move Left. And for this past year, they've never felt that. I hope it shocks them into stronger action than we've seen to date.


    by quinn esq (not verified) on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 2:42am

    It is way counter-intuitive to me, Quinn, but it won't be the first time. I have to admit I have been unable to watch much of the autopsy. It makes me want to vomit to see those vermin gloating, but in the little I HAVE seen, I have yet to see a dem leader say, well, gee fellas, I guess we need to move further left...maybe it'll come, but to me it seems like a palpable swing right, so far. I guess that means even MORE republican victories as "they" keep learnin' us our lesson.

    I have to tell you, it gives new meaning to the old saying about politics making strange bedfellows, to see libertine, a real liberal guy, in bed with my uncle, the birther. If it wasn't such a terrible thing for our country, I could sit back and laugh my ass off at the irony.


    by stillidealistic (not verified) on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 3:11am

    Self-serving and disloyal as he is, Bayh is probably impossible to dislodge. But surely Democrats can come up with candidates at least as electable as Blanche Lincoln and Harry Reid. I'd primary Dodd too if he hadn't taken himself out of the race.
    And Beau Biden shouldn't get a free pass in Delaware. That kind of nepotism is now toxic (see Scott Brown: "It's not Teddy Kennedy's seat; it's the people's seat").
    A third of the 36 Senate seats up for grabs are open ones. If the nominees are left up to the party establishment, they'll screw it up as badly as they did Massachusetts.


    by acanuck (not verified) on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 5:29am