Reply #75: according to that definition

[hfojvt]

most of us cannot be "action liberals". We don't actually make deals or have big money connections. The only thing we can do is support or attack action liberals who get elected to office, or who run for office.

I am not against compromise, but don't care for a candidate with big money connections. Once a person starts taking money from big donors the question then becomes how much they really are on the side of those who are not big donors. The other part seems to be our party's lack of negotiating ability. When the other party asks for the moon, our party may negotiate them down to half of the moon, which is not a very satisfying result. Then when our party wants to do something it seems like we start from the position of half a loaf and by the time it finally gets passed it has been compromised down to just 1/10th of a loaf. Better than nothing, but, again, not very satisfying.

So, surprisingly perhaps, I am gonna identify with the movement liberals. My complaint is not so much with the ideology of the movement liberals here, but with their hyperbolic inaccuracy. For example, I have had to respond many times to DUers who claimed that "Democrats voted for the war in Iraq" or "Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts". That any time three or more Democrats vote on the wrong side it becomes a reason to attack the entire Democratic Party.