Idiot Liberals Strike Again

When will Democratic leaders stop dissing their base? David Obey is making a habit of it.

Earlier this year, the Wisconsin veteran, who heads up the House Appropriations Committee called anti-war workers, "idiot liberals" for calling for a cut off in funds for Bush's Iraq disaster. This week, Obey told advocates for youth to grow up and stop complaining about the millions of dollars his committee intends to shovel to deadly, discredited abstinence-only programs.

House Democrats will likely vote today to increase abstinence-only miseducation programs to $140 million, a larger increase than any put forward in the last three years of the Republican Congress. Obey told NPR it's all about pragmatism: the Appropriations Bill faces a veto threat from the President, and House Democrats need all the support they can get from Republicans. And there are quid pro quos: to secure a proposed $27 million increase for the family planning program Title X anti-choicers need to be bought off with $27 million for deadly abstinence.

"It's about people acting like adults and realizing that you can't just hold your breath until you get your own way," Obey told Morning Edition June 14th.

But that $27 million increase represents just a ten percent growth in the budget for Title X; it's a 30 percent increase for abstinence only. Besides, most sane Americans were expecting the purportedly pro-choice Democratic majority to cut off funding for this boondoggle not increase it.

Anyone who read Michael Reynolds' excellent piece on the Abstinence Gluttons knows the myriad ways in which these censorship programs stink. As a congressionally mandated report recently concluded, they're bad health policy, bad fiscal policy, and should be ended. As Reynolds' documented in depth, federal funding of "abstinence" also gifts billions of dollars to GOP partisans who not only mess with young minds but also campaign against Democrats and progressive priorities.

As James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth told the Air Americans last week, the GOP gravy train was bad enough. "Now it's switched tracks and became a Democratic train. Obey can now stand tall and say that he is now one of the biggest funders of the Radical Right in America."

It'd be bad enough if it were just Obey, but progressive caucus members including Nita Lowey and Barbara Lee who sit on both the Appropriations and the Health and Human Services subcommittee (also chaired by Obey) that put forward this proposal are complicit. Democrats enjoy a 37:29 majority on Appropriations. What they push moves. The battle goes to the Senate next, where the 15:14 split on appropriations is much tighter. Speaking of senators, Hillary Clinton is talking up a storm on the campaign trail about her support for Title X. So far she's remained mum about millions more for sex-miseducation.

"We are not your pawns," youth activists told House Democrats on the eve of the Committee's vote. Wagoner has some glum young progressive organizers in his office to explain the Democratic majority to. Said Wagoner "as an activist you expect to fight this in a conservative republican Congress, but I can't tell you how infuriated, how angry I feel, having witnessed Democratic allies sell us out."

Thus Wagoner and his team join the anti-war activists. Bravo Democrats you're swelling the ranks of pissed-off, enraged, "liberal idiots."

Laura Flanders is the author of Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians, from The Penguin Press. Buy the book.

Comments (63)

1. Ms Flanders....

   You face two choices. 1. Dems take a stand and fight for a clean bill. On this topic, I see it less imperative than on Iraq (and they've already caved on that). But if they do, they must accept the "down-side", no new family planning funding and those who support it must accept that they aren't going to get that funding until 2009 at best.

   2. Give Bush what he wants and hope to get some scraps from the table....which is what they're doing here (sadly, less so than on Iraq).

   But here's the problem....there's no alternative, nor will be. If the "liberal idiots" split off and go "Green"...Fred Thompson (or whoever) becomes President and the situation gets WORSE.

   The BEST (perhaps only) thing to do is get Hillary (or whoever) elected and then get some "clean" bills passed in 2009.

   Until then, get pissed if you like, complain a LOT if you like, run primary challengers in solid Blue states in '08 if you like...but don't do something stupid.

   Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 09:38am

2. Ob-ey. Ob-ey.

   Ob-ay! follow the line.

   Sometimes one does have to make sacrifices to get to the end result. Spending 27 million for a program that has been shown to be a failure is a waste of tax payer money. Ob-ay should be ashamed, and not obeyed. He should stand on the floor and denounce the program for the failure it is.

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2007 @ 10:26am

3. Posted by MASK 06/14/2007 @ 09:38am

   Poor Mask, still struggling to find when it is okay to be "pure".

   Obey is the logical conclusion of making a habit of compromise. He proves my point, sometimes the lesser of two evils is actually the worse option. Let's out Republican the Republicans - that will show them. Speaking of idiot liberals.

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 10:57am

4. "as an activist you expect to fight this in a conservative republican congress, but I can't tell you how infuriated, how angry I feel, having witnessed Democratic allies sell us out."

   1. We have had no conservative republican congress.

   2. I think it means what it has always meant..they have done the math, and determined that "prpgressives, and the same clowns that show up at all the demonstrations today", are not the mainstream of their party, and can be ignored.

   We on the right call them loons and those in the Dem party call them unimportant and a danger to elections. You have no power..

   Most here constantly harp on how then dems leadership never listen to you...why do you think that it is the case? Look how the blacks are treated? They give 90%+ of their votes to the same Dems and same complains are lodged each year from them.. Could it be you are viewed as a problem and they hope the mainstream doesn't pay attention to the demands you all seem so married to? Ever notice who DOESN'T show up at your rallys, protests and gatherings? It is very evident that the "progressives" will get special attention 2 days before election, claim they have driven the arguements if the election has turned in the dems favor, ..only to end up alone in the corner...kinda like "impeachment is evident and America wants it" arguement...

   Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 11:09am

5. Its called follow the money and money in DC is power, apparently you have none of either...Soros is a good example..he has bought a good chunk of the Dem party and he seems to be happy today...who did he buy?

   Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 11:10am

6. ..Soros is a good example..he has bought a good chunk of the Dem party and he seems to be happy today...who did he buy?

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/14/2007 @ 11:10am | ignore this person

   whattabunchofhorseshit. where do you get this?

   Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2007 @ 11:18am

7. Maasch-You have no power,either.That's why you post your views on here.Your politicians don't care what you think and know you'll vote for them no matter how many times they flip flop or prove themselves to be raging hypocrites.How many GOP politicians view the anti abortion crowd as nothing more than gullible suckers?Many.How many of you gullible suckers bought into Bush's claim that he has a new plan for Iraq?Most of you.Politicians on both sides play all of us and people like you never figure that out.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 06/14/2007 @ 11:24am

8. FLANDERS: Bravo Democrats you're swelling the ranks of pissed-off, enraged, "liberal idiots."

   There is another HAPPY way to look at this situation:

   The Independents that made the most difference leading to Dem control of both Houses of Congress, have done Conservatives a `favor' by "swelling the ranks of pissed-off, enraged, "liberal idiots."" In the end game, should Obey be overly worried that libs, progressives and pro-abortion-on-demanders will vote anything but Dems? I don't think so!

   Most people are "pawns"......fact of life! There just happen to be more "pawns" in the Dem ranks....purely out of demographics!

   Posted by Happy at 06/14/2007 @ 11:25am

9. Yesterday the results of an NBC/WSJ poll put Dubya's and Congress' approval ratings at 29 and 23 percent respectively. As an MSN article states, these numbers --along with the 19 percent of Americans who say that were headed in the right direction, the lowest number in 15 years-- suggest that we've sunk below a political version of baseball's "Mendoza line" i.e. a sub-.200 batting average.

   No matter how you wish to spin it, the Democratic Party leadership has blundered badly in its strategy to triangulate thus alienate its energized progressive base. The bizarre May 24 vote-splitting manuever in support of the Iraq war supplemental funding --while spinning it as a "victory"-- was tantamount to performing a circus contortionist act of kicking yourself in the ass.

   All-in-all it's been a brilliant job of self-inflicted sabotage.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/14/2007 @ 11:25am

10. Face it, to get elected to congress requires selling out to corporate stooges. Left or right.

    The dems may ignore their 30% that are really liberal, but the repubs pay homage ONLY to their 30% evangelical base, ignoring the Maasches, the self proclaimed true conservatives.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2007 @ 11:28am

11. Happy, are you still sticking with your contention that even convicted republicans are better than any dem?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2007 @ 11:30am

12. Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/14/2007 @ 11:24am

    The difference I don't expect them to listen to my every demands and I vote for the group as a whole that come close to what I would want to see happen...I am also a comprimise person and am not holding out an all for nothing...

    JR, Soros bought and paid for Moveon.org, and with it comes a big chunk of the dem party? who else listens to him? would they listen to him if he had no cash?...with out him the dem party might look a little different. If you think the Dem party is made up of "just good ol' simple grass roots folk," then you are feeding on horseshit.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 11:30am

13. The dem party is perhaps the biggest group of special intersts groups on the planet.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 11:31am

14. Politicians on both sides play all of us and people like you never figure that out.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/14/2007 @ 11:24am

    What do you think I have been saying to you since I found this site? And the "progressive branch" are the leaet likely listened to group in the dem party, IMO.

    You are buried in eveidence.

    As for the Bush, this is true for most of my experience..I voted for conservatives when I vote for BZush, both of them never delivered. So, NOBODY, we figured this out after Reagan left, and the sad part,Bush(both) was as close as we could come...and we are a long way off from conservative anything...believe me, we figured this out long ago...what puzzles us, is why so many here can't see it and their positions here? You are considered the loon part of the Dems and for the most part are ignored.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 11:37am

15. Maasch-When did you become a compromise person?That's new.Your posts seem to indicate that you believe that only progressives are ignored when,in reality,we all ignored.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/14/2007 @ 11:38am

16. Face it, to get elected to congress requires selling out to corporate stooges. Left or right.

    ...but the repubs....ignoring....the self proclaimed true conservatives.

    Posted by CRABWALK 06/14/2007 @ 11:28am

    Agree w/you first but you overlooked the Center, I'd add, especially the Center....and disagree w/second!

    Many, many true conservatives (Small Gov't, Fiscal Discipline, Economics, Strong Military, etc.) are able & willing to fund the candidates that come closest to their `package' of ideals. The GOP's traditional fund-raising is lagging and I know I'm part of that `temporary' problem!

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2007 @ 11:41am

17. Happy, are you still sticking with your contention that even convicted republicans are better than any dem?

    Posted by CRABWALK 06/14/2007 @ 11:30am

    Refresh my memory? Exactly when did I make that "contention" concerning "convicted republicans"? Otherwise, I'd say, you, CRAB, just demonstrated "Idiot Liberals Strike Again" w/slander and BS!

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2007 @ 11:43am

18. Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/14/2007 @ 11:38am

    I was taught years ago, that most hills are negoiable, but be very carefull to pick the rights ones you will die for...and in business, despite the discipline and structure, negoiations are the corner stone to a solid deal and long term success..has to be good for all, although some times it costs one side more and other times the other...politics can only be worse..

    One goes into the deal knowing ajhead of time what the 2 possibilitys will be...the rest is negoitated to avoid one of them.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 11:44am

19. Maasch-You claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a loon which negates your claim that you are a compromise person.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/14/2007 @ 11:47am

20. despite the discipline and structure, negoiations are the corner stone to a solid deal and long term success..

    this is equally true of international relations. imagine if Bush had heeded this advice with Iraq.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2007 @ 11:53am

21. Conservatives are IDIOTS (wrong on Iraq, Bush, Gonzales, ____)

    Liberals are GENIUSES (PROVEN 100% RIGHT)

    Posted by conshame at 06/14/2007 @ 11:59am

22. David Idiot Obey, the phrase IS, "Conservatives are Idiots" - you idiot

    Posted by conshame at 06/14/2007 @ 12:00pm

23. Maasch-You claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a loon which negates your claim that you are a compromise person.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/14/2007 @ 11:47am

    I claim no such thing..I have always claim that the progressive branch are considered the lefty loons, by not only me but by the nation as a whole...I actually agree with some things you call progressive....but you are not loons because I disagree with you, you are labeled loons by the right and the left, as you sit on the fringe of mainstream...I call the right wing fringe sect nuts and right wing loons also..and so do others of the right who are not so right....you call all of us on the right wing nuts...do you not?

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 12:00pm

24. My example...look at CONSHAMEs posts

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 12:02pm

25. If America had listened to LIBERAL GENIUSES, there would be no disaster in Iraq, there would be no disaster in the DOJ, there would be no disaster in the White House. America would still have it's money, it's soldiers still in one piece, it's honor, Americans would still have a right not to be tortured under the constitution. LIBERAL GENIUSES KNEW Iraq would be a disaster - we told you so - anyone who didnt listen to us is the idiot - and you will know who you are for the rest of your lives.

    Posted by conshame at 06/14/2007 @ 12:02pm

26. Conservatives named John Maasch, you have been wrong about Bush, Iraq, Gonzales, Iraq. You are consistently, arrogantly wrong. People who disagree with YOU, are geniuses, I wouldn't even dis loons by calling you a loon, as wrong as you always are.

    Posted by conshame at 06/14/2007 @ 12:05pm

27. this is equally true of international relations. imagine if Bush had heeded this advice with Iraq.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/14/2007 @ 11:53am

    Only if one is dealing with two partys that can enforce the terms and if one side comes to the deal clean and with open intentions...I think the US can fill that describtion and Iran can't even hide their obvious actions...

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 12:05pm

28. Con,

    I have read everything you have ever posted and I find the points you try to make the utterances of a juvenile,simplistic experience of life so far. You need time to mature...these A=B posts are elementry school level points that are wide sweeping and ignored..and your 100% genius math proves my point...to both sides..

    Have a nice day.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 12:08pm

29. Maasch-You do not speak for the nation as a whole.You only speak for you.I do not refer to all on the right as nuts.I have spoken with respect for my right wing parents and some of their friends.I have voted for people on the right.I only refer to extremists as "nuts" as does the psychiatric profession.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/14/2007 @ 12:09pm

30. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/14/2007 @ 11:37am

    And the "progressive branch" are the leaet likely listened to group in the dem party, IMO.

    Love it when I have an opportunity to agree with you, John Maasch. Totally true. Although, I think you are making the same mistake of the "progressive branch" in asserting that "true conservatives" and the "Religious Right" have much better success of getting what they want out of the Republican party.

    Example: Want to explain how the little adventure known as the Iraq war and rolling back taxes for the rich is helping the fiscially responsible agenda?

    Yes. Nothing but us loons here on The Nation. Maybe we can all get together and form our own party.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 12:17pm

31. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/14/2007 @ 11:44am

    You forgot the keystone of negotiation John. Knowing when to say, "No deal," because some deals are worse than no deal at all.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 12:19pm

32. David Obey is wrong - it is not the Liberals who are idiots.

    I correct myself. Conservatives are not idiots. ANY IDIOT would have known that Iraq would be a disaster. ANY IDIOT would have known that Bush would be a disaster.

    Posted by conshame at 06/14/2007 @ 12:24pm

33. Obey to idiot liberals: don't hold your breath, hold your nose!

    Posted by habiba at 06/14/2007 @ 12:26pm

34. I went too far and I apologize. In the past I might have called some Conservatives "idiots". I am so sorry to all idiots out there, because I implied that idiots are on par with Conservatives. Every "idiot" in the world knew Iraq would be a quagmire. Every "idiot" in the world knew Bush would be a Hitler.

    Posted by conshame at 06/14/2007 @ 12:28pm

35. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/14/2007 @ 10:57am

    Okay, SRJ....you've won me over. Even if it's Edwards (surely you'd grant him the title of "most progressive of the corporatist Top Three Democratic nominees", even if he gets the nomination....

    I'm going to tell everybody I know...."Look, it's vital to send a message to the Democrats that we will bode no compromise, no 'half a loaves', no 'centrism'....so, if you can't find it in your heart to vote for David Cobb (or whoever the Green candidate is, that's polling 1-2-3% in your state)....don't vote or HELL, vote Republican....the future depends on the Democrats flopping big time, so that NEXT time (2012) they will be more ideologically pure!"

    and we'll worry about the endless wars, trillion dollar deficits, lack of Constitutional rights, and a 7-2, maybe 8-1 Hard Right US Supreme Court later when "the Revolution" comes!

    Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 12:36pm

36. " Maasch-You do not speak for the nation as a whole."

    I never claimed to...no one can.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 12:36pm

37. Posted by CONSHAME 06/14/2007 @ 12:28pm

    CS, you're a nutjob. On the Ari Berman thread on Hillary's earmarks, you bring up "Republicans" criticizing her and earmarks...

    when it was ARI BERMAN doing it!

    You're the left-wing version of RIO and his "Demoncrats".

    Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 12:38pm

38. Maasch-You said that progressives were considered to be loons by the nation,as a whole.Sounds to me like you were speaking for the nation,as a whole.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/14/2007 @ 12:44pm

39. Posted by MASK 06/14/2007 @ 12:36pm

    Voting for the main Republican candidate wouldn't actually work. As for me, I'd simply recommend that people vote for the candidate that most represents their interests. Perhaps that candidate is Nader. Perhaps it is Ron Paul on the Libertarian ticket. Perhaps, this election, Edwards is the candidate or even a Clinton.

    My main concern is that people consider alternatives, particularly when you have examples like Obey that are handing so-called compromises over that fulfill the Republican agenda even better than the Republicans themselves dreamed of doing rather than at least even trying to take a tough stand on these issues. Obey is just following the pattern of The Clinton administration on this - and it is a problem.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 12:55pm

40. SR,

    By the way, I enjoy reading your posts..

    "Example: Want to explain how the little adventure known as the Iraq war and rolling back taxes for the rich is helping the fiscially responsible agenda? "

    I understand why Bush went to Iraq, and I think he believed he could get a foot hold there for democracy by helping the most secular Arab nation to grab hold of the democratic principles we value..and therefore help stem and end the AQ influence and turn the area around..so to speak, and as such, I had no problem with that, as I believe we have been under attack by extremists since before Carter. I consider all these attacks related to the Islamic drive for world power....trouble is Bush and company did a magnificiant job taking Iraq and had no idea how to hold it...there is where I am pissed....the rest of his(Bush) policys I have no real problem with except the horrible spending..absolute sin in my book...therein lies the end of the fiscal responsibility and my support of Bush...

    as far as tax the rich..I believe this to be a fatal flaw in modern economics..I have always prefered a tax on consumption, as we are a comsumer society, and leave a mans income alone. With certain benchmarks and income level exemptions the treasuruy will have even more cash to waste under this system. No more decutions or fees...and shrink down govt to the levels the FF envisioned.

    "You forgot the keystone of negotiation John. Knowing when to say, "No deal," because some deals are worse than no deal at all.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/14/2007 @ 12:19pm

    In circumstances such as described above by you, I can say we would never make it to the table for conclusions until this stage has been fleshed out and determined if further discussion is even warrented. Therefore, a deal/no deal is determined early in the contact.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 1:01pm

41. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/14/2007 @ 1:01pm

    Thanks. I find it interesting to read people like yourself, Happy and Mask as well because I like seeing where we have things in common. Even though at the moment, I'm spending way too much busting Mask's hump on third-party politics - where we disagree.

    This is one example. I would agree with a certain line of conservative thought that nation building is not something the federal government should be engaged in. My reasoning is somewhat different from conservative thinkers, but many of my conclusions are the same.

    I think the case is more compelling that the motivations for the war are more about controlling resources. But, whatever the motivations, it is very expensive in terms of both lives (mostly Iraqi) and treasure (mostly U.S.). I also think it is morally wrong.

    The problem with a consumption tax is that it is regressive. A greater portion of the income of poor people are taken as tax relative to the rich. That's a problem.

    It is also a huge problem for business because it provides a disincentive to purchase. If you had to pay a consumption tax on an automobile purchase, you might then decide to keep driving an older car or move to other forms of transportation such as mass transit or bicycling - which would mean major changes in our society. Some of these changes I actually see as positive, but there is a significant downside that also needs to be considered.

    But here's an example that might hit closer to home. Consumption taxes typically aim at discretionary spending, particularly luxury items such as jewelry or vice products such as tobacco. You may actually have to find another line of work if there were a move to a consumption tax. (I seem to recall reading somewhere you sold jewelry - hope my memory isn't failing here).

    Personally, I fall more on the line that the people that enjoy the greatest benefits in society have a greater obligation to share those benefits with the poor. A surgeon is only able to focus on the work she does because her time is freed up by the maids she employs to keep her house clean. To some degree, each of us is helping the success of each other and there needs to be an equitable sharing of the collective benefits that takes in all the significant factors - such as the half year a surgeon spends on call while the mades only work a 40 hour week or the fact that business needs unemployment at 5% or so in order to have a pool of labor to draw from to grow.

    Progressive taxes are one way to make this kind of adjustment. There may even be a way to shape a regressive tax to address some of that as well - breaks on essentials and high percentages on discretionary items.

    I also have the same problems with shrinking the government - because then we have to talk about how people are going to get the essentials when business has every motivation to squeeze out all the profit they can out of employees. We see what happens when there is no brakes on this kind of behavior during the Gilded Age - workers organize and you have major disruptions to business and labor conflict.

    Perhaps that is a good thing too. I think people expect too much from the government and aren't organizing themselves to create a better world. But, you have to realize that less government means more self-government and more labor unions, and more aggressive labor activists. Government more frequently than not - has come down on the side of business in these conflicts. Smaller government means business won't have anyone to turn to when these fights get tough - although I suppose Blackwater could play the role of the Pinkertons.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 1:57pm

42. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/14/2007 @ 12:55pm

    What if....the Right takes the fiendishly clever stance of "I'm not completely happy with Giuliani, but know I'll get more from him that I will get if I split the vote and vote for the....Right-To-Life Party or whatever?"

    And while people on the Left "vote for the candidate that best represents their views" (from Nader to Paul to Clinton) and dilute their left-wing votes into three-four-five sub-sections....a PLURALITY bloc of right-wingers, some accepting "half a loaf"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 2:16pm

43. Posted by MASK 06/14/2007 @ 2:16pm

    I'll butt in and tell you what . . . Guiliani wins.

    But, that's OK. It just brings us one small step closer to a Pure Progressive victory in 2088.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2007 @ 2:23pm

44. But, that's OK. It just brings us one small step closer to a Pure Progressive victory in 2088.

    Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2007 @ 2:23pm

    Yeah...just it, to show that I read it right....heheh.

    Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 2:51pm

45. You did.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2007 @ 3:02pm

46. Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2007 @ 3:02pm

    SRJ is more intelligent, but using the same "logic" that Empty Spence used a couple months back....that of, "We must let it get much worse, so that we can have 'The Revolution' and the public gets so poor and fed-up that they run to the Neo-Socialists for salvation".

    As an old war-horse of political studies, this is a re-tread I've seen before. Heard it in 1988 with Bush v Dukakis ("After 8 years of Reagan, the public will reject conservatism and embrace liberalism again...look at the homelessness and deficit, the public won't stand for that for 4 more years!")...

    then in 1992 it was "Clinton will usher in a new age of Liberalism. His election PROVES that conservatism is finally dead, after 12 years of Reagan and Bush". One "Hillary-care" and one "gays in the military" later...and you got Speaker Newt!

    Then it was Gore..."Nobody is going to vote for that idiot cowboy, Gore will win in a landslide and after 8 years of 'triangulation' and 'New Democrat'....he'll go populist and fight the Republicans and end the 'end of Big Gov' talk".

    So now we're to "Centrism is just as bad as conservatism...let's let the GOP win and maybe the Democrats will learn their lesson and move away from the center and become true blue Leftists"...

    so ignore the failures of 1984 and 1988 (is ANY "Greenie" going to argue that McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis were "DLC'ers"?!?!?)....and ignore the successes of 1992 and 1996 AND 2006 (Did Jim Webb run as a "pure progressive"? Did Maria Cantwell? Sherrod Brown sure as hell didn't!)....

    and let's go with an idea that makes America worse, in the "hope" that it'll get so bad that people will start voting the way "we" want them to!

    Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 3:48pm

47. Posted by MASK 06/14/2007 @ 2:16pm

    More likely, the religious right just doesn't show up and people talking about "true conservatives" vote for a libertarian candidate. But don't let the facts interfere with your scary bedtime story designed to get people to support your rightward slide.

    Every four years, you drag out the same monsters - primarily The Supreme Court. I even bought that line of reasoning last time. Not this time. That dog doesn't hunt anymore.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 3:53pm

48. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/14/2007 @ 3:53pm

    SRJ, how is it a "scary bedtime story"? I've seen posters here (like you) who say "If it's Hillary (or any "non-progressive"), I am NOT voting for the Democrats!"...

    and I've seen LVLIBERTY (biggest Religious Rightie we got going here...the guys a PREACHER for crap's sakes) say "Yep, it's THAT important...even if the GOP nominee is Rudy, I'm voting Republican in '08".

    Now that's anecdotal and a small sampling, but I'd guess it's fairly representational. A fundamentalist Christian conservative who says he will DEFINITELY vote for a pro-gay rights, pro-choice NEW YORKER (heheh)...

    and "progressives" who say "Anybody to the 'right' of Dennis Kucinich wins the Dem nomination...I'm voting for the Greens!!!!"

    Now, replicate that on a national scale (and yes, of course, some progressives will "give up" as it gets closer and vote Hillary, just as some religious righties will stay home and pray...but not many, to most of them they think Hillary is the Anti-christ in a pantsuit....

    oddly, so do some people on the Left!

    Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 4:06pm

49. Posted by MASK 06/14/2007 @ 3:48pm

    My logic is actually straight-forward. I vote for whom I think represents my interests. It's actually Politics 101 to make people that represent you to earn your vote - rather than take it for granted because, hey, what else are you going to do?

    Your position an anathema to a functional democracy.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 4:07pm

50. SRJ - A president has to represent a lot of different people's interests. There are no perfect candidates . . . for anyone.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2007 @ 4:27pm

51. . Guiliani wins.

    wins what? he will not get the repub nod.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2007 @ 4:45pm

52. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/14/2007 @ 4:07pm

    Again, SRJ....how does that theory work in the extreme example I posited?

    "Lighten" it a bit, if you like. Say the GOP nominates Duncan Hunter (as far Right as you can get. The guy sponsered the "Parent Empowerment Act" which would allow people to sue Hugh Hefner if their kid got ahold of a 'Playboy'!"....

    the Dems nominate Her Nibs (Hillary)....

    and the Greens nominate Polly Purebredprogressive....

    Hunter polls 45%....Hillary polls 45%...Polly gets 2% and 8% are undecided.

    You and a lot like you "vote for the person that represents their interests" (Polly), Hillary loses by 500 votes in a "Purple" state that was dicey from Day One until November 7th...and Polly gets maybe 1 million votes (but gets 80,000 in that Purple State).

    Democracy has been served...it's true. But Hunter gets a friendly Congress (no, not Democratic controlled) and passes a bunch of draconian crap, starts a war or two...kills a few thousand Americans and several thousand others, plunges the deficit to Hell, and gets 2-3 Supreme Court guys who make Alito look like Earl Warren FOR LIFE!

    You know....I think I'd like to see a SLIGHTLY less "functional" democracy, where ideologues think more about others or even themselves, than protecting their precious "principles"....and where that nightmare scenario doesn't occur.

    But I'm crazy that way!

    Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 4:47pm

53. Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2007 @ 4:27pm

    I don't disagree. The problem is that you are arguing - in the thread (Queen of Earmarks, Posted by HMAN23 06/14/2007 @ 2:28pm) that in the general Presidential election you have to vote either Democratic or Republican. I can choose Coke or Pepsi.

    And hey, sometimes Coke might be the right choice. Sometimes, I'd like a little fruit juice or water. Arguing about "perfect candidates" is nonsense - no different that talking about the perfect beverage. It's a convenient little trick Mask likes to play when he wants to belittle a position by pretending it is about "purity", although oddly wants to avoid that line of thought when it applies to his positions, when candidates might turn left and go beyond his "purity" zone.

    Sometimes going for a third option is the better choice. It's not really a contraversial statement, but it is a statement that Third Way Democrats can't abide - because they can't win without the left (unless of course there is a third party splitting the Republican party like Ross Perot).

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 4:59pm

54. Sometimes going for a third option is the better choice.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/14/2007 @ 4:59pm

    And sometimes I think you have to play defense as opposed to offense when it comes down to the general election. Every scenario is different; maybe it makes more sense to have this discussion once we know the nominees.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2007 @ 5:17pm

55. It was a hypo someone else set up, JR.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2007 @ 5:23pm

56. Mask-What gives you the idea that Hillery would not start a war or two,get draconian measures passed,plunge us into economic ruin,etc etc?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/14/2007 @ 5:50pm

57. JR, Soros bought and paid for Moveon.org, and with it comes a big chunk of the dem party?

    what? nonsense.get a grip.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2007 @ 6:26pm

58. What is MoveOn™? The MoveOn family of organizations brings real Americans back into the political process. With over 3.3 million members across America – from carpenters to stay-at-home moms to business leaders – we work together to realize the progressive promise of our country. MoveOn is a service – a way for busy but concerned citizens to find their political voice in a system dominated by big money and big media.

    The MoveOn family of organizations is made up of a couple of different pieces. MoveOn.org Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, formerly known just as MoveOn.org, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal PAC, formerly known as MoveOn PAC, mobilizes people across the country to fight important battles in Congress and help elect candidates who reflect our values. Both organizations are entirely funded by individuals.

    Every member has a voice in choosing the direction for both MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action. Using our ActionForum software, you can propose priorities and strategies. Both organizations also take the initiative to organize quick action on other timely issues that our members care about.

    A short history MoveOn.org Civic Action was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard.

    In 1998, MoveOn PAC was formed as a political action committee so that like-minded, concerned citizens could influence the outcome of congressional elections, and in turn, the balance of power in Washington, D.C. Now known as MoveOn.org Political Action, this organization provides individuals, who normally have little political power, an opportunity to aggregate their contributions with others to gain a greater voice in the political process, and brings people together to take important stands on the most important issues facing our country.

    The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11th, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a restrained and multi-lateral response to the attacks, which was quickly signed by more than half a million people. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward, and is now MoveOn.org Political Action's Executive Director.

    Printer-Friendly 1-Page Fact Sheet About MoveOn.org Political Action MoveOn.org Political Action, one of the largest Political Action Committees in the country, brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidates. It conducts major campaigns, from its work to protect the Supreme Court from a hard-right justice to its campaign to defeat the right wing and elect moderates and progressives in 2006. But in contrast to most PACs, which funnel industry contributions to candidates in exchange for access, MoveOn.org Political Action brings hundreds of thousands of small donors together to elect candidates who will represent the American people. With one secure online credit card transaction, you can immediately make contributions to several campaigns. All contributions go to the individual campaigns in the amounts you specify. MoveOn.org Political Action takes care of all the required FEC paperwork by transmitting necessary contributor information to each campaign.

    Because it's a federal PAC, MoveOn.org Political Action can't accept donations greater than $5,000. And in fact, MoveOn.org Political Action is mostly funded by people who give less than $100 – folks who don't have a lot of money but want to see a change. Through 2004, MoveOn.org Political Action raised approximately $11 million dollars for 81 candidates from over 300,000 donors. In 2005, MoveOn.org Political Action grew to 3.3 million members and 125,000 members contributed $9 million to progressive candidates and campaigns (average donation: $45).

    To contact the staff of MoveOn.org Political Action, click here.

    About MoveOn.org Civic Action MoveOn.org Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, is engaged in a campaign to reform the media and other work aimed at bringing real people back into the democratic process by making sure legislators hear their voices.

    In 2002 and 2003, MoveOn.org Civic Action conducted a campaign to stop the Iraq war, as well as campaigns to keep the federal courts moderate, support campaign finance reform, oppose the repeal of the estate tax, and reduce America's dependence on oil.

    three million? that is a big chunk of the dem party? c'mon now, not even you can believe this junk.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2007 @ 6:29pm

59. Mask-What gives you the idea that Hillery would not start a war or two,get draconian measures passed,plunge us into economic ruin,etc etc?

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 06/14/2007 @ 5:50pm

    Cuz she's not suicidally incompetent like Bush, maybe?

    Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 8:17pm

60. "Con,

    I have read everything you have ever posted and I find the points you try to make the utterances of a juvenile,simplistic experience of life so far. You need time to mature...these A=B posts are elementry school level points that are wide sweeping and ignored..and your 100% genius math proves my point...to both sides..

    Have a nice day.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/14/2007 @ 12:08pm"

    My impression: "WAAAHHH"

    Most likely, Con has given up arguing with conservatives and Republicans because they don't respond to logic (that's right, ALL Republicans, go ahead and cry), only jokes at their expense. And if he or I get some joy making fun of you, that makes it all worthwhile.

    Posted by bransby at 06/15/2007 @ 10:21am

61. Ralph Nader was not 100% stupid. He knew George Bush would be a Hitler, he knew about PNAC (1997) and their hope to occupy Iraq forever. Just as any idiot can be certain that Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain all want to carry on with more Hitler-style pre-emptive occupation.

    Posted by conshame at 06/15/2007 @ 12:04pm

62. There are 2 wings of the Democratic party: the idiot (conservative) wing, and the genius (liberal) wing.

    Naderites claim that Republican = Democrat. But that is not true. There are liberal Democrats: my own representatives are ALL liberal Democrats. There are conservative Democrats, such as David Obey.

    David Obey and his kind are the idiots. Idiot is based on whether you are Conservative or Liberal. If you are Conservative then you are an idiot and if you are Liberal then you are a genius.

    LIBERALS: right about Bush, Gonzales, Iraq

    CONSERVATIVES: wrong

    So who's the idiot David Obey. David Obey is a fuccking idiot moron, Bush suck-up. The conservative wing of the Democrats is the stupid wing. It's the Conservative Democrats that Americans are pissed at, it's the Conservative Democrats that give Congress it's low approval rating. Liberal Democrats want to get hardcore, Liberal Democrats want to stop the new American Hitlers, Liberal Democrats understand what America is up against, Liberal Democrats are ready to get hardcore.

    Conservatives had their moment, they did not lead, we will.

    Posted by conshame at 06/15/2007 @ 12:13pm

63. There are 2 wings of the Democratic party: the idiot (conservative) wing, and the genius (liberal) wing.

    Posted by CONSHAME 06/15/2007 @ 12:13pm

    Which one is Hillary in, CS?

    Posted by Mask at 06/15/2007 @ 12:43pm