I'm so damn old I remember when "purists" were just "liberals" who weren't ashamed of it.

[Atticus]

Those liberals, maybe because they didn't have much to lose, were willing to put it all on the table and "let it ride".
"What to do" was answered by deciding what was fair and right and just---and we used those words in discussing "what to do". Today, I suspect, there would be giggling and condescension and admonitions to "live in the real world".

But, back in the day, we had an answer for that: "Fuck you! Get out of the way!"

We didn't live in the "real world" when we forced corporate America to the negotiating table; or when civil rights---including the vote---were extended to people of color; or when the Viet Nam War was finally ended.

We didn't win all our fights, but by God, we FOUGHT all our fights!

War is wrong. People should be allowed to love whoever they choose. Labor has an absolute RIGHT to organize as they see fit. Women should control their own health and reproductive decisions. Education and health care should be provided by all to all.

These are "principles". They should be thought of as goals. If what we do and say advances those principles, we are on the right track. If what we do substantially delays or defeats those principles, we are off track.

Powder was meant to be used, not kept dry and saved forever. I think we'd all be amazed at how powerful liberal ideas are if we'd just act with passion to bring them to fruition.

I'm sure several are ready to try to hand me my ass by this point, but why not just try to understand that some of us really BELIEVE this liberal stuff.

[StarfarerBill]

1. K&R, and testify!

:D

[Dinger]

164. K & R and Testify! Part II

Excellent.

[treestar]

2. The people on the other side also believe they are "right"

That's why we have to compromise to get anywhere.

[Atticus]

4. Lieberman? Is that you? nt

[treestar]

24. Lieberman did compromise

If he's such an insurance company whore (very probable) he'd have held out for no changes whatsoever.

[Atticus]

35. Who brought up "insurance company whore"? Methinks thou dost protest too much. nt

[placton]

63. Lieberman is a total waste of skin

[austin78704]

67. I don't believe that for one second

The insurance companies got what they wanted--mandated health insurance and a windfall of customers. Lieberman just cut off a few strings those annoying congressmen had attached.

[laughingliberal]

78. Yes. It is what they wanted

Wendall Potter said the insurance companies got everything they wanted. Even an industry spokesman said they got 95% of what they wanted. I guess the 5% they didn't like was the part where they have to give us a policy after we send them our money.

[leeroysphitz]

158. Word. n/t

[HowHasItComeToThis]

148. YO, CALL 'EM AS THEY ARE

[sabrina 1]

165. You've got to be kidding. It was the Insurance Industry

who wanted 'reform', which translated meant handing them 30 million new clients. As Wendall Potter said when asked by Bill Moyers 'what did your colleagues in the Ins. business SAY when you told them about Americans who had to be treated in horse stalls because they had no coverage?' Potter: 'They viewed those millions of people as potential new customers'.

The Insurance industry like the failed Wall St. Banking system was facing extinction. As the economy failed, more of their customers were losing their jobs and no longer paying their premiums. Baby boomers will soon be moving to medicare, not to mention their own greed contributing to unaffordability of their 'product'.

So Insurance reform was necessary to save their worthless business. And that's all it is, INSURANCE REFORM. Now, people are being forced by law to buy their product. How would you like Congress to hand you 30 million new customers under penalty of law, and if they can't afford it, have the Government pay you for covering them? And if they are above that poverty line and cannot pay, Congress gives you the IRS as your collection agency? That is some deal for them.

Proof of how thrilled they are with the Senate version of the bill, now stripped of anything that benefits the public and takes any money from the Ins. Ind., plus removes all competition in the form of a PO, was the internal memo after their guy, Lieberman, got the extended Medicare option removed. The memo simply said 'WE WON'. And yes, they did! And with the help of Lieberman and his DLC accomplices, the people lost.

[Lorien]

5. Funny how the people on the other side NEVER compromise

and still get exactly what they demand.

[Jakes Progress]

7. Funny how they always forget that. nt

[treestar]

22. that's crazy

yes they do.

You've got to quit insulating yourself from their view.

[Atticus]

42. Which of "their views" do you find so reasonable? nt

[kenfrequed]

108. That doesn't make sense

Explain that comment or at least elaborate more than a single broken clause.

How percisely is the insurance company not getting what they want?

How is it we have Not compromised ourselves out of getting anything we wanted? No single payer universal, no public option (not even with triggers or opt outs), no medicare for all...

Explain it to me.

[JDPriestly]

129. "insulating" ourselves from their view.

That is impossible to do. Their view is everywhere in the MSM. You can't escape it. I wish I could insulate myself from it. But even when they lose elections, they still dominate everything. They are the corporations. They buy their way into our lives. We cannot insulate ourselves from them. Oh, how I wish.

[demosincebirth]

6. Ditto

[Jakes Progress]

10. Yes that is Rush's tagline. nt

[treestar]

25. That side has purists too, and they also fervently believe they are right

And they also don't get anything like the country they want.

And are less likely to in the future.

[Atticus]

40. I just reject the notion that THEIR purists are the equivalent of OUR purists and, therefore,

compromise is necessary. And, I sincerely hope they do not get "the country they want". That's not a place I'd want my grandkids to live.

We disagree, but I appreciate your civility and your responses.

[Enthusiast]

61. Oh bullshit.

They have no principled position they have been bought by the insurance industry. Why don't you return to freeperville.

[kenfrequed]

109. Agreed

It was never about dueling "purists." It was the insurance industry against the American people.

[ChiciB1]

107. treestar... You Are Pushing "Their" Agenda Here? Is That Your Intent?

Of course, each is entitled to their opinion, but you almost sound like... well I think many of us know what you sound like.

I could go on, but I don't want to do any real name calling, just wondering.

[Enthusiast]

119. I think "treestar" is a play

on TS or tomb stoned. He was just attempting to propagandize until he got caught. Anyone that repeats RW talking points is suspect in my book.

Now, let's find another stealth Republican.

[ChiciB1]

123. There Are Some Here... Or So It Seems. There Are Names That Keep

popping up saying the same type of things. I freely admit that Obama has disappointed me, but that doesn't mean I would rather have McPalin!! I'm soooooooo sick of that reply when a person dares to go against the grain. And there are many who would prefer that the more LIBERAL types would just go away. We did actually stand for something and we said so then and say so now!

I don't know if they're just a younger bunch who weren't a part of what we were, but some seem so willing to "follow" without questioning. If that is the case I can understand a "little" better, but some of us who DO remember when we DID make a difference it's hard to understand. When you see some of the same handwriting on the wall, I find it hard to get in line behind and "follow" certain things you see as just plain WRONG!

Follow The Leader was a game I played when I was MUCH younger!

[Enthusiast]

133. Thanks.

I'm not even sure it is those 'not so liberal' DUers.

Most of us are pissed off because President Obama has failed to get the financial services industry regulated, achieve meaningful HCR and escalated the war in Afghanistan. I really don't think these are so much liberal issues. Mainstream America supports us in this.

Now there are those on DU that wish to paint resolving these issues as a sort of pie in the sky or pony. This is pure obfuscation. Some of them are corporatist DLC, some are stealth GOP, some are teabaggers and I suppose a few are legit, but not many. The position we 'liberals' are taking are simply not extreme in the least no matter how much they scream 'extreme'.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

147. treestar comes from Wilmington, DE ... tax haven for many

corporations like banks and big pharma.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/usa-tops-international-ta_n_340613.html

* According to the Delaware Secretary of State's office their operating budget was $12 million in 2007 and they made $24 million in the fees for expedited incorporation filings alone.

* There are currently some 695,000 active entities registered in Delaware, including 50 percent of the corporations publically traded on the U.S. stock exchange.

* New business formations in Delaware are currently running at about 130,000 per annum.

* The growth of private individual deposits by non-residents was most robust in the United States outranking other popular financial jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, United Kingdom, and Luxembourg with total non-resident deposits equalling $2.6 trillion in 2007.

FACINATING video:

BEST TAX HAVEN- AMERICA

[frylock]

111. they have proven to be consistently wrong..

why should their opinion matter?

[rhett o rick]

142. I notice that you dont spell out where you stand on the issues. Why? nt

[Cirque du So-What]

13. When have those dickheimers ever compromised?

That's a key to their success; they NEVER compromise. It's certainly not due to any intrinsic value in their ideology, that's for damn sure!

[Political Heretic]

31. Compromising with the right did not bring us social security or medicare or a 40 hour work week

...or worker protections....

All Republicans voted against those things. There's something missing from the analysis of the "we have to compromise" crowd. It's that the nature of the compromise is the issue.

Almost no one disagrees that negotiations and interactions need to take place. There are a few, perhaps, out there somewhere who do. But not many. The issue at hand is actually what kinds of deals you can make that still translate to positive benefits for the people you are supposed to be representing vs. what kinds of deals you make that no longer translate to positive benefits for the people you are supposed to be representing.

All collies are dogs, but not all dogs are collies - all legislative processes require compromise, but not all compromises are worth supporting. That part of things is pretty simple to grasp.

It becomes complicated because some argue that the compromises made in this health care fight were good compromises, and that the result achieves positive benefits for enough ordinary Americans over the long-term to be worthwhile. Others argue that the compromises made in this health care bill were bad compromises, and that the result fails to achieve benefits for enough ordinary Americans that will last over the long term.

That's the dilemma, and I promise you we're never going to "settle" it. At least not for many years.



Personally, my fear is that this health care reform legislation will be viewed ten years out a lot like welfare "reform" is viewed now (by people with, you know, statistical data and a career in social services).

Back in the day, when AFDC, also know as "Welfare" was killed, and Clinton triumphantly proclaimed the end of "welfare as we know it" there were plenty of Party voices fiercely advocating for how welfare needed to be abolished and replaced with TANF. Many liberals objected, but there were plenty of people - mostly those who were most concerned with supporting the president first, and the impacts of policy second - who vociferously defended both the need to sign the bill and the bill itself and white house and democratic efforts to "reform" welfare.

People said a lot of things about that bill that are now being said about this one. But now its over a decade later, and the simple reality - pretty much indisputable from quantitative and qualitative peer reviewed research, including longitudinal studies over multiple years - is that TANF hurts poor people, and pushes millions of people off the "rolls" so that the books look good. It's done more harm for ordinary Americans than good, despite all the arguments and justifications made by loyal party and personality democrats at the time.

I can't prove how things are going to turn out. And there's still time for some miracle to happen in conference to make things look better. But right now, for all the reasons I've written probably close to 250 pages about over the last months, I fear the worst.

[laughingliberal]

80. Excellent and spot on

Those of us who were not in favor or 'welfare reform' were silenced in that debate, also, and the damage the bill would do was downplayed. Same arguments we see on HCR. What's the story, now? This time it's going to be different? This time we're going to pass a conservative, corporate friendly bill but it's going to turn out for the best?

[kenfrequed]

110. Bingo

I couldn't agree more. We are letting ourselves be pushed around by the most extreme elements of the right wing of the republican party with the corporations providing the carrot incentive to the spineless 'moderates-for-hire'

[ChiciB1]

115. Political Heretic, You Make Very Good Points & I Agree With You... I Think

for some reason, and one that I can't really understand, that many here have a different definition of loyalty than you or I. To those it may mean it's as simple as "black & white" and I've never found that ANYTHING is "black & white." I don't even think it's "shades of gray" either, but a multitude of colors! Sadly for me, the Party of the BIG TENT has taken on a new meaning!

I've made this comment here many, many times and it's one my father drummed into my head when he introduced me to politics when I was 11. He said... "If you don't STAND for something, you'll FALL for anything!" I'm sure he himself was taught that too and passed it along as I have passed it along to my children! I've heard both my daughter and son repeat it many times for many years, not necessarily about politics, but many times in reference to politics!

I'm a Boomer and generally others see me as LIBERAL, and I am, but even though I couldn't vote for LBJ, I NEVER would have! But looking back, even given what he did regarding Viet Nam, he was no "moderate" Democrat! IMO, Obama thus far seems to be much more moderate in his thinking than many thought he would be. I actually feel he's leaned much more to the right than I could have imagined. There may be many reasons he's done so, but I really think he's alienated so many of us and we feel betrayed.

Questioning authority is a good thing in a Democracy, that's what I think and feel. I too, recall issues with Clinton and ALWAYS knew he was to the "right" of me. But I felt I "knew" that even before I voted for him. Obama never really gave me that impression. What I got from the Obama campaign was much more progressive than what I've seen!

I especially liked this comment that you made... "All collies are dogs, but not all dogs are collies - all legislative processes require compromise, but not all compromises are worth supporting. That part of things is pretty simple to grasp."

However, you said much more and it also was very informative. Just wish we could get THAT message across to the WH AND Congress, and to many here who seem to feel that any disagreement with the WH et al means we want Obama & Democrats to fail!

There are many QUESTIONS, too few ANSWERS!

[truedelphi]

124. + 1,000. n/t

[G_j]

47. ==

:puke:

[ima_sinnic]

62. the Compromise Party is getting to be a real turn-off

Imagine MLK Jr "compromising" on civil rights.

[ekwhite]

64. Yes, you have to compromise, but

...you don't compromise your principles. The problem is that the Democratic party of today is more concerned about parliamentary procedure than the principles of Democratic icons like Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[JDPriestly]

127. That's what they said about "separate but equal." It's a compromise.

You have to compromise.

No. We are endowed with certain rights at birth. Corporations do not have those rights.

Do we sometimes, on our way to getting what is right, have to accept less than what is right? Yes. But we keep on fighting. That is not compromise. That is strategy.

What is so disappointing about Obama is that he simply gives up the fight.

[zogtheobvious]

135. Correction:

The SMALL MINORITY on the other side has piles and piles of cash, which they use to BUY compromise.

[Better Believe It]

140. But the right-wingnuts and Republican rightists are wrong! They are the enemy!

And they compromise nothing!

Hitler and Stalin may have thought they were right.

The racist segregationists thought they were right.

The KKK thinks they are right.

The anti-abortionists think they are right.

The Tories in the American revolution thought they were right.

The American politicians who endorsed the invasion of and war against Vietnam thought they were right.

Does any of that really matter.

They had to be fought, not coddled.

[rhett o rick]

145. Curious if you believe in Democratic Principles mentioned by the OP?

Do you agree,
"War is wrong.
People should be allowed to love whoever they choose.
Labor has an absolute RIGHT to organize as they see fit.
Women should control their own health and reproductive decisions.
Education and health care should be provided by all to all."

If not, plez enlighten us.

[Smashcut]

152. I am so sick of this idea of compromise for compromise's sake.

Or the superiority some people apparently feel for being "moderate." You know, being in the middle doesn't make you better. It actually just makes you wishy-washy at best and cynical at worst.

[liberation]

153. Being right for the correct reasons is not the same as thinking one is right for the wrong reasons

but then I guess that your DLC talking points do not work unless you try desperately to establish a false dichotomy. LOL.

You guys are sad....

[leeroysphitz]

159. We gave up almost everything of value. What has the other side given up? n/t

[Lorien]

3. Absofuckinglutely. nt

[AllentownJake]

8. That was before the media was owned by 6 companies

and it required 2.5 million to win a congressional seat.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Did you have to walk uphill both ways through the tear gas...

...to get to the SNCC meeting?

[Atticus]

15. Not both ways, but "way back then", snark was not a substitute for actual thought.

Care to actually contribute---or are you just into "cutesy" hit and run commentary?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

44. It's not a substitute for actual thought NOW.

Nor is your silly hagiography of progressivism "back then." So I gave your post the response it deserved.

[G_j]

48. snark is snark

only one you're kidding is yourself

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Yeah, sorry I could come up with a brilliant commentary like "==" and a vomit smiley. n/t

[G_j]

53. you're lucky you got that much nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. Erm... That was your reply to treestar, not to me.

:shrug:

[Atticus]

49. Sorry you feel that way. Not many can use "hagiography" correctly in a sentence.

I wish you were on our side.

[G_j]

52. delete

sorry

[SOS]

96. "hagiography of progressivism "

Yeah.
The Progressive Movement at the time of Woodrow Wilson, the abolitionists in the 19th Century,
the Labor Movement of the 1930s, the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s and the uprising of the late 60s-early 70s
were "silly".

:eyes:

But credit where it's due; they were saints.

[kenfrequed]

114. Absurd.

What are you taking offense to then?

No one is against action now, particularly for single payer and public options added to the bill.

Treestar is seemingly happy with the insurance mandated status quo.

Or do you just dislike the idea of people here recalling what it took in the past to win and how firm a stand you have to take to get there.

In short: What the hell are you kicking about?

[nashville_brook]

103. oh snap.

[ekwhite]

66. No, but people risked life and limb

...to help bring civil rights, to help end the Vietnam War, and to bring about a lot of other reforms we take for granted. I had friends who went to prison for their beliefs. How about you, snarkboy?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[highplainsdem]

12. K&R

[mirrera]

14. ding ding... k&r... I used to use Capital Letters...

[canetoad]

16. Yep, I used to think like that too

In my teens and twenties.

Now in my 50s I accept that society needs fanatics and fighters as much as it needs the complacent and slow to move; they balance us out and save us from the self-destruction that unchecked fanatics, no matter how well-meaning and socially aware, would inflict on us, society as a whole.

In my (our) youth, the young were at the fore - fighting, agitating, making change. It is the job of the young to do so, so that our age may be honoured by being able to pass our wisdom and prudence on to them - whether they listen or not.

I fear that many children of boomers no longer have the fight in them. Maybe a sheltered life, ennui and boredom or rebellion against the perceived failures of their parent's generation. As we age, where is the next generation to pick up the flag?

[Atticus]

19. I guess I am just weird through and through. I have grown more liberal as I've grown older.

The "wisdom" I would impart to my children and grandchildren is "Always question authority" and "It is YOUR (OUR) job to make right what you find wrong and, yes, to try to leave the world just a little better than you found it".

I'm not ready, at just 60, to "pass the baton". The next generation can have it when---how's that go?---"they can pry it from my cold dead fingers".

Thanks for your response.

[canetoad]

23. You have more energy than I

:)

Used to love a good demo better than anything, but now I tend to activate in a slower, more measured way such as providing my very conservative but lovely, old arthritic neighbours with joints and cookies. The intent is still the same but the need to put my body on the line has diminished. That's what young people are for.

[Atticus]

32. Keep up the good work. If your "conservative" neighbors are into "joints and cookies", maybe they

could get into some Howard Zinn. If that's "too extreme", maybe they'd find Joe Bageant a little more palatable.

Just sayin'---.

[rurallib]

72. I have also just turned 60. I agree almost 100% with you

My difference is that the things I believed in when I was young, I still believe today. But the country was dragged so far to the right by Saimt Ronnie and Bushco that what were 'moderate' views in 1970 are now wild eyed liberal views.
And I, for one, prefer to be called liberal. I will not let the right wing crazies define what I am in teir terms. I am liberal and damned, damned proud of it.

[glitch]

21. Boomers raised their children in feedlots, to their fearful and eternal shame.

Free-range humans are virtually extinct in the USA.

[canetoad]

26. So the next time I see one

I'll catch it, stuff it and put in on display in a glass case.

[ekwhite]

68. They are still out there

Thousands of students demonstrated against tuition hikes in the California higher education system. That was something that affected them personally, just like the Vietnam affected the youth of our generation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. It will be our childrens' children who will pick up the flag -

if there is anything left to pick up by then. It skips generations, every time. The activists of one generation are seen by their own children as being only (sometimes less than) human, and fallible, therefore since they can be wrong their ideas must be wrong - so we get the activism of the 30s and 60s bracketed by regressivism of the 20s, the 40s/50s, the 80s (and beyond). Why is it taking so long this time? Because the boomers and their children both delayed having families, so the 3rd generation won't come of age for another 10 years.

I hope we have that much time.

[AlbertCat]

122. I fear that many children of boomers no longer have the fight in them.

Maybe a sheltered life, ennui and boredom or rebellion against the perceived failures of their parent's generation.

**************

C'mon! You know it's the Homosexual Agenda and godless Evolution driving the youth to nihilistic materialism!

Just keep your Government hands off my Medicare! God, guns and SUVs!!!!! America...fuck yeah!






(Personally...I think the problem is religion as a substitute for logic and critical thinking. America falls behind because of religion. Name one progressive idea that hasn't been stopped, hindered or watered down because of some (real or imagined) roadblock of reigious origin.)

[Greyhound]

17. K&R, very well put.

:applause:

[amborin]

18. KNR

[KoKo]

20. I don't remember the expression "Purists." I just remember when folks seemed

to have a sense of wrong and what was good for "the people." Sort of a "Golden Rule" thingy. I know one thing ....my Parents and Grandparents from the Depression would have never put up with the shit we are living through. And, maybe because I'm older that my parents were Depression Era Kids and my Grandparents lived through WWI and beyond through the Roaring 20's and then the GD.

So...I just say...the Media and Powers that Be would have never dared to go at them they way they've gone at us since that generation died firs and now are getting older and don't have a big voice being just Pre-War and Early War Babies who are small in number.

These people would have never gotten away with what they are doing now if those folks were still out there in great numbers.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. :nod:

Yup.

K&R

[Atticus]

38. Thanks. A nod from you means a lot. nt.

[jgraz]

28. K&R. We're still here!

And we still want our goddamn pony! :D

[depakid]

29. When I see a poster talk about "purists"

I see a person who deserves exactly what they've gotten- and likely are to get down the line through repeated pandering to the right..

[laughingliberal]

76. Sort of agree. When I see a poster talk about 'purists,'....

I believe I'm seeing a person who got exactly what they wanted.

[gleaner]

30. I'm old enough to have ..

the same memories. We tried like hell. We won some and we lost some. Many of us are still trying even though we seem to have become targets of ridicule. The people who make the most fun of us do not understand that we don't care. We are interested in results and we will continue to try to get them. Thanks for the post. r/k. For those who don't agree, try reading it through just once without commenting and then think where you would be if people didn't keep trying. We're in a bad place now, but it could be a lot worse.

[laughingliberal]

82. +1000 nt

[Nikki Stone1]

33. Maybe we are just old, Atticus. We're from a time when people mattered

and corporations were held in somewhat. I fear those days are gone.

[Atticus]

37. Does this take you back?

"Take your place on The Great Mandala
As it moves through your brief moment of time.
Win or lose now you must choose now
And if you lose you're only losing your life."

That was true in the 60's. It's still true.

[Nikki Stone1]

56. Thanks for the reminder.

:)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

45. Uh, wasn't that around the time the auto companies bought up all the local railroad...

...and transit companies and destroyed them so that everybody would have to use cars? Corporations "held in somewhat" my ass.

[Atticus]

51. What is it with you? Someone circumcise you in your sleep?

Put a mouse in your Bosco?

What?

[Nikki Stone1]

57. Actually you have a great point.

Can you explain what your handle means?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

58. I thought it sounded like something Palin would name one of her kids. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

59. Oh! LOL!

Yeah that works. :)

[rhett o rick]

143. And Standard Oil bought up the trolley systems in S. Calif and junked them. nt

[Fumesucker]

34. K&R, Well said, thanks for posting..

[Cerridwen]

36. Right there with you.

I'm so old I remember when "principles" were important and education was for learning rather than a line on a resume.

Hell, I remember when education was valued not ridiculed.

[laughingliberal]

84. I remember that.

I managed to graduate just before St. Reagan cut funding for higher education and the whole thing started a downhill slide.

[AlbertCat]

131. I managed to graduate just before St. Reagan cut funding for higher education

All I have to say is "ERA NOW!"


(Like we used to win 'em all :eyes:)

[Zenlitened]

39. K&R!

I think we'd all be amazed at how powerful liberal ideas are if we'd just act with passion to bring them to fruition.

:applause:

[EFerrari]

41. K&R. Last night I watched a booktv segment on the freedom riders.

Someone went through and put together their mugshots with their portraits now.

Beautiful faces. Beautiful fight.



http://www.booktv.org/Program/11039/2009+Southern+Festival+of+Books+Eric+Etheridge+Breach+of+Peace+Portraits+of+the+1961+Mississippi+Freedom+Riders.aspx

[quaker bill]

43. I don't think anyone is ashamed

if only liberals were actually in power with a clear and dependable majority, I expect we would demand and receive. I look forward to the day that this is the case and will continue to work for it. We are getting close, and if the economy recovers like many now expect, we could finally get there in 2010.

One thing we did not do when "we didn't win all our fights" was whine and take our ball and go home (third parties and primary challenges). We kept pushing forward.

We have elected a President who I am pretty sure would sign any piece of progressive legislation we can compel congress to pass. Perhaps we should consider doing that.

If the economy recovers nearly as well as currently expected in Q1 and Q2 2010, we will have the perfect situation to drive the republicans to their Dunkirk. Get enough progressive votes and the blue dogs become irrelevant. With 65 votes, no single Senator becomes indispensible on his own (Joe Lieberman). We are close to the goal line, it is time to quit whining and drive for the score.

[Atticus]

46. No whining here. Let's do it! nt

[laughingliberal]

87. I see this differently

I believe a 'recovery' in the economy will be declared a victory and any work to restore fairness in work and wages will stop. I think those in the administration will then turn their attention to 'deficit reduction,' which they have already signaled and that will be that. Next up will be Ben 'entitlement reform' Benanke pushing for cuts to Medicare (more cuts, actually) and SS. Look for the push for privatization of SS to return. I don't see the administration moving left when they can claim victory on the center right policies they've been pushing.

[Political Heretic]

139. Who is expecting the economy to recover well in Q1 and Q2?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6021LK20100103

Not those guys, at least.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. I'm so damn old I remember when "liberals" weren't Grover Norquist-blowing teabaggers.

[Chulanowa]

60. And back in the day "Progressive" was a word for "sellout" to liberal ears

Considering it's what liberals who are terrified of being called liberals use to describe themselves these days, I guess the term hasn't migrated too very far.

[malaise]

65. Great post

Rec

[Soylent Brice]

69. superb.

[sui generis]

70. so our "schism" is between purism and pragmatism

oh, the isms have it.

:P

I'm a purist - but in a nutshell purists become liberals who are rebels without a pause, and pragmatists become sheep whose value system places accommodation above standards. They're also tasty when seasoned and prepared properly over an open flame.

[Political Heretic]

126. No, it isn't. That is a completely false construction.

[sui generis]

137. and THAT was a completely empty assertion.

I'm sorry for your loss. Humor is a dreadful thing to live without.

[Political Heretic]

138. Not really, no

It's not an empty assertion when you can provide substantive support.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7388638&mesg_id=7389119

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7388638&mesg_id=7393068

It may be that I've lost a sense of humor, or it may be that it just wasn't funny :)

[NorthCarolina]

71. K&R for a great post! (nt)

[shadesofgray]

73. K&R. I'm a liberal who will never compromise.

[natrat]

74. wait, didn't we just vote for all those liberal ideals....oh yeah i forgot

[L. Coyote]

75. I'm so damn old I remember when "liberals" were "slaves" who wanted to be free.

Kinda of feels like that again!!!

[mochajava666]

77. Keeping the powder dry

Harry Reid has said that so much that I think he is just a dry powder collector that has lost the original idea of what to do with it.
Everyone knows that compromise is necessary, but WHEN to compromise and to what extent is what is so frustrating to Liberals. The health care bill is a poster child for the Dem's inability to lead with strong convictions and principles. Reconciliation should never have been off the board if the "Liberal Leadership" had principles that wouldn't be compromised into oblivion.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

79. Hell yes Atticus

tell it like it is!!!!

[2 Much Tribulation]

83. No excuse for NOT AIMING FOR the principle/goal. If we fall short, we tried our best

But all too many people think that "first steps" means AIMING FOR something far less than the principle or goal itself. That is CAPITULATION. Anyone remember "keep your eyes on the prize?"

[Buzz Clik]

85. I remember when being a liberal meant being open minded.

These days, some believe it means "you're with us or against us."

Narrow mindedness has no place in liberal thinking.

[laughingliberal]

89. I believe there were always issues about which liberals did not keep an open mind

I recall we did, once, have some principles upon which we did not see compromise as acceptable.

[Buzz Clik]

91. Your comment agrees with mine at least in the context of the OP:

Being a "purist" is not a litmus test for being a proud liberal, particularly when proud liberals can disagree on fundamental issues.

[Political Heretic]

128. You can't define "purist," which is part of the problem - thus his comment doesn't agree with yours

at all.

Purist just means "anything where someone I'm talking to is critical of a policy or position coming from democrats which I happen support."

That's the only working definition of purist I've ever heard.

The definition "unwilling to compromise" is horse shit, and applies to next to no one. Most everyone is willing to compromise and work through a process that involves many players - its just sometimes some people aren't willing to make specific compromises while being willing to make others.

Typically calling someone a purist means "not agreeing with me."

[Greyhound]

97. You confuse the abandonment of principle with "open-minded".

The perfect example of the results of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7390280">this thread.

[Buzz Clik]

104. No, not really. Your assumption seems to be that there is a single line of "liberal" thought.

That is simply not true.

[kenfrequed]

117. Perhaps...

You could explain all these other "liberal" lines of thought. Or is it just that the more 'moderate/third-way/DLC/fiscally-conservative' lines of thought might be popular with business but are not very popular with democratic activists or voters.

[Buzz Clik]

121. My assumption about the OP is that this is in regard to the health care reform bill.

Those calling themselves "purists" seem to think that single payer is the only acceptable way. Those not nearly as hard-lined find the public option to be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Are the public option advocates "moderate/third-way/DLC/fiscally-conservative" demons? Or, are they simply liberals who have a broader view?

Stepping away from the HCR issue, let's talk about fiscal policy. Those farthest to the left are avid socialists and find all large businesses to be totally repulsive. I'm assuming that would include the Sierra Club and Al Gore's business of buying and selling carbon credits. I like the Sierra Club and I like Gore; am I on the outside looking in? A Democrat in name only? Or, are some business structures acceptable within the framework of liberalism?

[kenfrequed]

134. Nonsense

A: Most of us progressives were labled purists. Which you obviously recognize in your continuation of the original posters uses of quotation marks.

B: To most of us progressives, a very strong and sturdy public option WAS the compromise. Sadly Baucus and company in the Senate decided to push us into starting with nothing of what we wanted and worked our way towards mandated insurance from there.

C: Your label of 'avid socialist' probably speaks more about your positions than anything else? What would you call the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower, or Nixon then? In all of those administrations marginal tax rates on wealth were much higher as were higher bracket income taxes and none of them would fit a definition of a socialist.

Honestly when you toss around names like 'socialist' or make broad generalizations like that it makes me think that you either don't know history, are just here to smear the left, or both.

[Political Heretic]

130. No, but there most be agreement in some essentials while there is freedom in non-essentails.

Otherwise, we're not a group - not a "party." We have nothing that identifies us as together in any way.

Liberal doesn't mean "any idea you hold is accepted." Liberalism has never, in my lifetime, held the idea that slavery is acceptable, and no one who does is no simply "accepted." We don't need to be "open minded" towards racism, bigotry or homophobia.

The way you describe it, makes it sound as if the term liberal has literally no meaning - could mean anything from Fred Phelps to Noam Chomsky. If Phelps called himself a liberal or a Democrat, then who are we to judge because we're so open minded and have such a big tent, right?

Obviously in order for terms like "liberal" or "Democrat" to have any meaning, they must define some inclusions and exclusions - these things define you as liberal and Democrat, these things exclude you from the liberal or Democrat label.

It's not an absolute science, but there has to be some consensus on at least the essentials otherwise the terms are pointless, powerless and irrelevant.

[liberation]

162. And you seem to be under the assumption that you can rename your political leanings

as liberalism, just because the hubris you guys brought has damaged the conservative brand beyond repair.

[Greyhound]

166. No, that is not an assumption, nor did I say that. You put the words in my mouth and then

discounted them. A typical tactic used to deflect or distract from the point and one which you are well-practiced at.

There are core principles that we liberals subscribe to and they also happen to be the principles this nation was founded on. That you and your ilk do not possess these principles defines you.

[Buzz Clik]

167. LOL! You deny that you assume that there's only one line of liberal thought...

... and then you define that single line of liberal thought. And bathe it all with insults.

God, I love the insane left.

[Greyhound]

168. Right and wrong, principles, common good, I understand that these concepts are

unfamiliar to you, but they have always been with us and formally acknowledged since at least the 12th century. That many like you deny them does not diminish nor derogate them. They are the basis of our civilization and in the end, that is what you fight against, the advancement of civilization itself.

So be as backward as you like, work to increase the deprivation and suffering of others, but please stop trying to pass yourself off as liberal, you are the antithesis of liberal.

[liberation]

161. Don't you have to be a liberal at some point to remember what being one was like?

My grandma, in her late dementia states would make bold claims, among other things she would let us know that she was the Queen of Sada. There is a higher possibility that royal blood runs through my veins, than you ever were anything remotely close to be considered "liberal." (neo-liberal doesn't count... in case you were looking for a loop hole)

LOL.

[Political_Junkie]

86. Sing it!

:applause:

[liberal_at_heart]

88. Powerful post!

[fascisthunter]

90. "Fuck you! Get out of the way!"

that's me right now...

[rhett o rick]

149. It's past time for a movement. How does one get started? nt

[bvar22]

92. The Democratic Party needs MORE "Purists", like this one:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."---FDR's Economic Bill of Rights

What happened to THAT Democratic Party?

[Goldstein1984]

93. As people of principle, we should

stop apologizing for being idealists rather than pragmatists.

It could be said that to compromise is to be compromised.

I will stop prefacing my views with qualifiers such as, "This may seem idealistic, but..."

Thank you for the inspiring post. People of principle should rally around it like a manifesto.

[midnight]

94. K&R.

[mvd]

95. Good points!

Being a liberal doesn't mean we can't compromise at all, but it does mean adherence to certain principles. Sometimes we are all too willing to go along just for unity's sake. The reason I have refrained from giving Obama a bad grade (below a C) so far is that maybe he will work with liberals to expand on what he has started. Liberals should be strong, but as the term means, also open-minded.

[mac56]

98. K&R

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that we aim too high and we miss it, but that we aim too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo

[rudy23]

99. The term "purists" comes from people who don't give a good goddamn about Progressive values.

Labeling liberals as "purists" is a talking point from people with no ethics to be pure about. They see all ethics as exaggerated "purism" b/c compared to the ethics of the robotic sociopaths who coined that term, they are.

[flyarm]

150. nor Liberal VALUES AND PRINCIPLES!! I JUST WONDER WHO THE FUCK THEY ARE..

To me they are cowards and sell outs!!

or on someone's payroll!!

[Captain Hilts]

100. It's like "I'm not a feminist, but...." nt

[guruoo]

101. Everything changed when the baby boomers grew up and had kids in school

Oh, yes it did!

[Sebastian Doyle]

102. The solution - as Thom Hartmann is saying on the radio right now

...is movement politics (as opposed to partisan politics) and getting the corporate money out of the political system.

And as the signature says, if you have a DINO (not)representing you in DC running for re-election this year, take them out in the primary. And if the DLC tools are taking over your local Democratic party, take it back. Fuck those cowards.

[defendandprotect]

105. Neither WE nor the IDEALS have changed, but right wing co-option of Dem Party has changed it ....

That's what the coup on JFK was all about --

a coup on our "people's" government --

and destroying the Democratic Party and its leadership so it could no longer be used

for true democratic action -- democratic legislation -- democratic ideals --

Certainly, at this point, there is no one left who is going to investigate the right

wing and its fascist political violence. Indeed, after Sen. Frank Church ran his hearings

on the CIA -- and the records of those hearings have never been released -- they quickly

targeted Frank Church and got him out of the party.

And, that's true of anyone else in the party who was willing to continue to support PURE

democratic ideals --

In fact, the "McCarthy Era was itself an attack on the ideals of democracy --"

That's Molly Ivins!

And, I'd add an attack on those in government who supported democratic ideals.

We have LONG been under attack by fascism --

Certainly since before the end of WWII and "Operation Paperclip" --

"Mockingbird" and all of the other programs the CIA was able to pull in being exempt

from our National Security laws!

Happy New Year -- and good luck to us all in identifying and defeating this fascism!

[Cleita]

106. Me too.

I remember when being liberal was cool and being conservative was considered stodgy and square.

[WillyT]

112. Big K & R !!!

:applause::applause:

Tell it, man.

:yourock:

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. We were "Effete intellectuals", "dirty hippies", and "Commie-Pinkos" in those days.

[LiberalAndProud]

116. If what we do substantially delays or defeats those principles, we are off track.

I agree. Now if we could only agree what delays most, when the irresistable force meets the immovable object, how much progress is achieved?

Compromoise is a part of the process. It alarms me to see what lessons some of us have taken away from the Bush era.

[saracat]

118. Thank you! there was a time when WHAT we won was more important than WINNING

and people were more important than politics.For many who claim to be Democrats that is no longer the case and it is to the detriment of our party!

[Faryn Balyncd]

120. k and r. thanks for post.

[JDPriestly]

125. I'm from that era too. Not armed. Not dangerous.

Just raised to believe that all men are created equal (and women too) and endowed by their Creator with certain rights, the most elementary of which are stated and must be inferred from the American Bill of Rights.

We are simply asking that we be afforded those rights. Corporations do not breathe, sweat, bleed, cry, hunger, thirst or turn to dust when they die. They are not human. They are not created equal to us and only we can grant them rights.

Power to the people, not to the corporations.

[Paper Roses]

132. K&R. I'm also old and Liberal. Sometimes even wise.

I agree with you. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

[TheKentuckian]

136. For the purposes of this debate it would seem one is a "purist"

at whatever stage they feel the Senate fiasco isn't good enough and for whatever reasons.

I've (and others) suggested market oriented solutions that would be helpful in making a better bill for the people whether their is a government plan or not but apparently any serious regulations, removing the anti-trust exemption, or expanding choice to more people therefore expanding risk pools are all seen as too liberal, too purist, and too ideological just as much as a NHS or Single Payer. This bill has been set as the benchmark for what is to be believed in and that is bogus.

There is a line when all practicallity and reality is abandoned but what some refuse to admit is that there is also a point where pragmatisim suddenly turns to rolling over and selling out. The only principles I see adhered to in this bill is the preservation of corporate profits, a nearly utterly counter-productive employer based system is retained, and that the well being of the people is a secondary (at best) concern.

[Echo In Light]

141. K&R

[flyarm]

144. Oh my!! Thank you ..there really are some of us left..that believe and live with true principles

and values that are liberal and real..

To those too new to understand or to have true beliefs in liberal prinicples and values..you need to educate yourselves and you need to grow some balls and fight for what most true liberals have always fought for!

I for one and damn sick and tired of being told by some around here I have to suck up bullshit to go along to get along ..with total sell out behavior to all my prinicples and values as a life long Dem and proud Liberal..and life long fighting union member!

Thank you OP..a wonderful post that i feel to my soul!

fly

[rhett o rick]

146. I have been asking and asking what principles the so-called centrists have.

But none will respond.

[flyarm]

151. don't hold your breath..they remind me of the bushbots ..who collected checks for pushing a war

agenda..you know the arm chair warriors bush hired and told is to get out of the country if we didn't go along..shame shit just another group of sell outs, for pennies to the dollar ,while fucking our nation and the rest of us!!!!

You know who they are..all of us do..

[SaveOurDemocracy]

154. Yes, our "principles" define us individually, and as a nation.

They must be cherished and guarded or they will be lost. We can't afford to look the other way when TPTB make them negotiable.

Those who believe this is a passing 'hissy-fit' by party purists better open their eyes, ears, and minds to the reality of the depth, determination and commitment of 'principled' Dems.

[slipslidingaway]

155. knr - thanks! n/t

[stray cat]

156. Unlike those purists now who simply judge everyone who has any opinion not identical to their own

and wants to kick any they deem less pure than themselves out of the party

[stray cat]

157. Unlike those purists now who simply judge everyone who has any opinion not identical to their own

and wants to kick any they deem less pure than themselves out of the party. THose purists who make up free republic think the same way

[David Zephyr]

160. Happy to be able to squeeze in #164 to K&R.

I'm also one of those old liberals. Always was proud to say so.

[tblue]

163. Thank you! Oh thank you thank you thank you!

I am so tired of being told to accept some warped version of "reality." Atticus, I could kiss you!