Centrist Dems push back on Warren

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY AMIE PARNES - 08/18/17 06:04 AM EDT

Moderate Democrats are pushing back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) view that progressives have taken control of the party.

“We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states,” said former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who is leading the Fight Back California super PAC aimed at winning back seven House seats in the Golden State.

Interviews with Democratic strategists, donors and organizers from across the country reveal deep disagreement with Warren’s premise that progressives make up the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party.

Warren offered that synopsis during a speech at the liberal Netroots Nation conference last weekend, adding that progressives are in control of the party. The Democrats who disagree with Warren are generally from the center of the party, and many were staunch supporters of former President Barack Obama and Clinton.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/347012-centrist-dems-push-back-on-warren

[Maven]

1. The Hill. LOL. nt

[bettyellen]

8. This is all the Hill ever does- divide Dems. Ugh.

[Maven]

9. They should rename themselves The Shitstarter. nt

[NurseJackie]

2. Good.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Anyone who wants to run should do so. Primaries and

caucuses will settle who gets the nod.

[LisaM]

27. Hopefully primaries, NOT caucuses....

I'm trying to contact my representatives here in Washington state to rid us of caucuses. Exhibit 1 against caucuses (especially open ones) is Donald Trump.

[a kennedy]

4. Is this bickering EVER going to end so we can work together

to take back the house AND the Senate??? Sheesh........ faux business, (on at the gym), were talking about the Dems not having a clear message and are way behind in fundraising. We have got to get this corrected especially NOW during this gift time that is the orange man in the White House. JMHO

[left-of-center2012]

5. "Is this bickering EVER going to end ..."

No.
There are too many who wake up every day trying to figure out how to 'stir the pot'.

People who keep attacking parts of our base will wonder in 2018/2020,
where was our base?

We must unite to fight the GOP in 2018 and 2020.

[elleng]

6. I'm afraid not.

[murielm99]

7. Fuck faux business.

When I am at the gym, I change the channel, or I make them do it. I will cancel my membership if they don't. And I have been there a long time!

I don't believe there is as much bickering as places like faux would have us believe. And I don't want us to march in lockstep like the repiggies. We are not the Zombie Apocalypse. We are Democrats.

[Indigoskies]

17. Might Not Matter So Much

Think about it. This might be the one election cycle where the old axiom of whoever spend the most wins doesn't hold true. Consider that a there's growing demographic out there that is as angry with Republicans as with Trump, and in fact blame them for Trump. Many more people are now becoming engaged politically who weren't before. As long as we can give them candidates who clearly are DIFFERENT from Republicans, and stand united and don't try to sabotage each other, then already we go in with an advantage in some places. Especially if party leadership is flexible on platform and supports progressive candidates when they clearly are the more popular choice. All we'll need is enough money to get the message across, with emphasis on policy difference, how our candidate ISN'T a Republican.

[apnu]

22. No. Liberalism has never been a "work together" kumbaya place.

We liberals, of every type and color will always bicker. Its what we do, debate, discuss, and bicker the issues until a consensus forms and movement happens.

Sometimes that bickering is brief, sometimes it goes on so long nothing happens.

This is what is in the big tent collation that we have, its frustrating for sure, but its always been this way.

[Roy Rolling]

10. Political incorrectness Ahead

This is stupid. It is dumb. This frames the differences in a package of "progressives" vs. "moderates" as defined by the political party's rules.

Violence vs. peace. Good vs. bad. Life vs. death. These are the underlying principles that should guide the Democratic Party. Democratic election and party professionals can operate from there---there are PRINCIPLES we follow, and do not change opinions like chameleons. We do not do an about-face like GOP evangelicals did for Trump.

Party employees and campaign professionals can guide a vote strategy, but their job is SELLING the outstanding principles of justice and mercy that Democrats stand for. Not changing the message to make it easier for them to sell. (In their opinions)

[Initech]

11. WTF! That's exactly what we need right now!

Argh, I hate The Hill!

[broadcaster90210]

12. Warren is spot on. Piss on the rest.

nt

[Plucketeer]

15. Spot on indeed!

Some folks cling to their comfy old rut - even if it leads to a dead end.

[moonseller66]

13. Status Quo?

I'm still trying to figure how all that "Middle of the Road', "Moderate Democratic Ideology", " if we act like them we're no better", "Let's move on and forget the past" shit has worked so well for the Party since 1994!

Sometimes, it would seem, when the same damn thing isn't working, trying something or someone new might just goose some idiots running things to try a different tack!

FDR supposedly said a Republican was like a man with two perfectly good legs, afraid to take one step forward. Blue Dog Dems and the Neo-Dems fit that comment well (not to mention Third Way and others). Of course, they don't want their cozy clique of wealth and limited power (but more than us peons) upset unless it looks as though they may lose their precious positions.

[yurbud]

20. oddly, if you look at history, the dominance of "centrists" in the party has coincided with

losses and narrow margin majorities in Congress--not the overwhelming majorities Democrats enjoyed during the New Deal consensus that even Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon dare not push back on and even advanced in some ways.

"Centrism" isn't about winning--it's about making sure the already very wealthy win no matter which party does.

[FairWinds]

14. She should run !!

Last edited Fri Aug 18, 2017, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Go Liz !!

Just read a good essay by Katha Pollitt pointing out that there
is nothing "moderate" about the party not standing up for
women's rights.

Nor is it "moderate" to fight against universal health care.

Nor is defending the Forever Wars

Nor protecting the banksters

[WhoIsNumberNone]

16. Maybe if you ran progressives they wouldn't be swing states anymore

Republicans will almost always beat Republican Lite

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

18. I think they have a point

Centrists are more likely to win in swing states. They would give us control of congress which would be better than the current group of clusterfucks leading it.

[yurbud]

19. "centrists" have lost both chambers and most state legislatures through their corruption

and tepid, incremental action to help middle and working class Americans.

If they worked as hard for the rest of us as they did protecting and enriching Wall Street, there would be no Trump.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

21. Nice revisionism

You're not going to elect a Nancy Pelosi or Elizabeth Warren outside of a deep blue district.

[yurbud]

23. Maybe on cultural issues, but not on economic ones. And that's the problem with centrists

without gay rights, and not being racist like Republicans, the differences on economics, war, trade, and other bread and butter issues are not enough to distinguish them from the GOP.

[yurbud]

24. I agree about Pelosi but not Warren--her economic emphasis would play well a lot of places--

just like Bernie did.

[GaryCnf]

32. I have to disagree

Centrist like to claim that it was this strategy that took back the House in 2006.

No doubt the strategy was in place in 2006, but this claim runs up against some inconvenient truths. First, in 2006, W had driven the GOP into a ditch. They were almost as divided as we are here. Second, we kept gaining seats in 2008 with a decidedly liberal slate of candidates. Third, in 2010, without the help of a hated President Bush being in office, the centrists lost seats at many times the rate of liberals.

[Dave Starsky]

25. Ah, jeez...

Not this shit again.

[spooky3]

26. I'm a "centrist" who also likes Warren. There are a lot

of us. The media is overblowing these internal issues.

[Wellstone ruled]

35. Every time this Rag named Hill,

has something to say,if seems to echo the old DLC.

[LisaM]

28. Hillary Clinton IS progressive, not a centrist, so I call so much BS. n/t

[GaryCnf]

30. You understand this is

a Hillary surrogate they're quoting, right?

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton

[LisaM]

31. Yes, thanks, I can read, and I don't care.

The fact that she might attract supporters both to the right and to the left of her is one of her strong suits.

[zentrum]

29. Go Warren! n/t

[GaryCnf]

33. Was she responding to this

Positive message?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/08/13/liberals-are-heart-and-soul-democratic-party-warren-says/k2KVBY4sfHl1YJELwqR5WJ/story.html

[pecosbob]

34. Screw centrists and screw centrism.

Is there really any substantive difference between centrists and conservatives? I think not. You're wrong if you think triangulation is the best course to win elections...that's what got us where we are today...global capitalism run amok and drone assassinations abroad. Work on your freaking messaging, you incompetent bastards (you meaning the DNC). Then work on picking a candidate next cycle that three-quarters of the country doesn't already despise.

[YOHABLO]

36. THERE IS NO CENTER !!!! IT FOLDED LONG AGO. they want you to believe there is a center.