Democrats are blocking the Employee Free Choice Act.

[kentuck]

Not the Republicans- Democrats. This is not going to pass at this time. A good gambler knows when to hold them and when to fold them. Will Obama fold on this issue and come back to fight another day? Or will he push it and see it defeated and will not be able to bring it back another day? Should we wait until after the elections next year or should we go for it now??

[ogneopasno]

1. Um...what?

[atreides1]

2. Their Corporate Masters have Spoken

And like the good little slaves to money that they are, they will fold like a dollar bill.

It's good to see that with the Democrats in charge things have changed, well maybe not!

[Mojambo]

3. Neither party gives a SHIT about the working class

One is a bit better at the sweet talking though...

[kentuck]

4. I think you are probably right...

And it will be proven in spades when they try to pass the healthcare reform.

[leftstreet]

15. Not true. We're very important right around election time

Sadly

[Occam Bandage]

5. More info, please?

[kentuck]

6. Here is a link ...

that is posted elsewhere in GD.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664230925077531.html

[Occam Bandage]

7. I don't think it's fair to call that "Democrats blocking EFCA,"

but rather "a few Democrats in red states are reluctant to lend support towards it, meaning it's unlikely the bill will hit 60 votes given the assuredly near-unanimous Republican opposition."

[kentuck]

8. It's always "just a few"..

Have you noticed??

[anonymous171]

13. Lockstep is bad, DU told me so. nt

[FudaFuda]

9. when the democrats hold the majority needed to pass something ...

and it doesn't pass,then it was blocked by democrats.

[anigbrowl]

10. some =/= all

If you want to rip on the specific Democratic senators, have at it. But don't ignore the majority that supported it.

[Two Americas]

17. double standard

The Republicans consistently and reliably battle for their clients - the wealthy and powerful few. They know what the battle is about and where the battle lines are drawn. They are tireless, consistent and effective. They never fail to show up for the fight, and never waver in their determination.

We have every right - we have a duty - to demand that anyone and everyone calling themselves a Democrat be just as clear, and fight just as hard for the interests of the rest of us - the 90% of the people, the working people. This is not unreasonable, nor "purist" nor "radical" nor "fringe."

It is not "the majority" of Democratic politicians who do give some lukewarm support to the working people whom we should be worried about, who are being ignored or not being given credit. It is not them that we should be worried about being supported. The opposite is true. The people are being ignored and not given credit, it is the people who are not being supported.

Telling the people to shut up and get to the back of the bus so that we can be loyal and supportive to politicians is backward. There is no point in electing Democrats if we are going to take that approach, and that approach sabotages representative democracy and empowers the right wing.

The only reason for electing Democrats is so that we can advocate strongly for the needs of the people and have some hope that they might respond to that. In a representative democracy, nothing happens without there being outside pressure. The big money people are pressuring politicians from both parties continuously. They aren't sitting back, "giving them a chance," or doing anything other than ruthlessly bringing all the pressure to bear on them that they possibly can. Our duty is to do the same thing on behalf of the working people.

"I support the Democratic party politicians" is weak and meaningless. The point of the whole exercise is to have politicians support us, work for us, not for us to be unpaid public relations hacks on their behalf and promote and support their careers. Wins by the politicians are not necessarily wins for us. However I strongly believe that wins for us will be wins for them - much bigger wins then they can ever get by playing it safe and caving to the right wing.

Lobby the politicians for the people, don't lobby the people for the politicians.

This is not about being a Democrat and being a loyal partisan now, it is about being a citizen and having integrity and courage.



...

[anigbrowl]

19. I don't agree

Republicans get as pissed off with their party as we do with ours, just about different issues.

"The Republicans consistently and reliably battle for their clients - the wealthy and powerful few. They know what the battle is about and where the battle lines are drawn. They are tireless, consistent and effective. They never fail to show up for the fight, and never waver in their determination."

Rubbish. Ask a Republican if they're satisfied with the GOP and they'll probably go on a tedious rant about how they've been sold out so many different ways, while ascribing supernatural powers of organization to the Democratic party. Personally, I believe the politics are mostly local, and it's a lot more effective to target individual representatives or senators rather than just making blanket complaints about the entire party, which only marginalizes oneself because it diffuses the argument across to broad a front.

[Two Americas]

21. confusion there

"Ask a Republican if they're satisfied with the GOP..."

You are talking about everyday people who have been voting Republican. That is not whom I am talking about.

It is of no value to "target individual representatives or senators" on a local level when we have no consistent framework or principles. The same dynamic applies at the local level as the national level. In fact, I think the national politicians merely reflect the domination of the party by the upscale few at the local level. We need to know what national positions we are advocating before we can be doing anything useful at the local level. There is no clarity or focus or consistency there.

This idea that we should now work for local progressive candidates, and work for some sort of baby steps and incremental progress that way - presented as being "practical" and "realistic" and "doing something" is merely the latest way to avoid reality, as we continually scramble to find some comforting haven, some easy way out rather than take the battle to the right wingers. It is certain to fail, because it does not address the root cause of the problem - the estrangement of the party from the working people, the lack of clarity, and the lack of courage. The conservative forces at the national level can and do crush grass roots efforts.

Calling for the party to stand for something - in general - is not "just making blanket complaints about the entire party" nor is it "diffusing the argument across too broad a front." It is the broad front where the problem is. The process has been short-circuited. The local parties see themselves as public relations offices for the national politicians. This turns the process upside down and undermines democracy.


...

[anigbrowl]

22. This is not at all what I was trying say

I am not talking about working through local party organizations, but highlighting individual representatives or senators who you disagree with, in order to raise awareness of the issue among their constituents as well as voters in general. None of this discussion would tell an uninformed person anything about how their representative is voting on this issue, and so none of it creates any meaningful pressure. You're never going to get full party-line compliance on every issue, nor would I want to.

It seems to me that the only way you'd be happy was if if the Democratic party became the Dennis Kucinich party. I respect your point of view but I just don't believe that this kind of rhetoric or tactical approach will have more than a marginal effect: I think you'll accomplish more by focusing your efforts. Yes, this is a strategic rather than an idealistic viewpoint. To me ideals are about what you want to achieve, and strategy is how you actually bring it about. I also think that half a loaf is often better than no bread.

Meantime:
'"Ask a Republican if they're satisfied with the GOP..."

You are talking about everyday people who have been voting Republican. That is not whom I am talking about.'

No, that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about committed Republicans of the type that hang out on FR, watch Fox a lot, or are generally quite partisan. They are continually pissed off that the GOP does not vote monolithically and don't think that the party is conformist enough - which is why they'd like to unseat Arlen Specter, for example. In the eyes of the partisan right, he's like their Joe Lieberman.

[Two Americas]

30. the issues

The right wing has declared all-out war on the working people, for the benefit of the few, the most powerful and wealthy 1% of the population.

We are asking the Democrats to be as focused and determined in protecting the other 99% of the people from the ravages of the right wing and their wealthy and powerful sponsors and clients. That is not too much to ask, and yes we absolutely can demand and get full party-line compliance on that fundamental life-and-death battle.

FR and Fox watchers are nothing to worry about. They make a lot of noise. They are not the enemy, they are mosquitoes that could and should be effortlessly brushed away without any thought or attention at all. Fox wants us to believe that we should be worried about that fringe or that they represent a significant portion of the population, but that, just like everything else on Fox, is a lie. Being "against" the lie, but still accepting it as meaningful is the way in which the right wing propaganda steers and controls us. Turn it off and ignore it. If you believe they are important and powerful and react to them as though they were, then they will be. Ignore them and the game is over and they lose all power. Their only source of power is in getting liberals to pay attention to them and react to their "ideas" as though they were anything to take seriously.

This has nothing to do with me being personally "happy." It is about what must be done and can be done, for the benefit of millions. There is nothing in it for me personally.

You say that you "just don't believe that this kind of rhetoric or tactical approach will have more than a marginal effect." I know from decades of direct personal experience that this is not true - the exact opposite os true. I give talks to blue collar people, to rural people, to poor people all over the country and say exactly what I am saying here - people who never see any liberal activists, who don't count, who are invisible, but who are the majority of the people in the country. It gets a tremendously positive response, because the have-nots well know the score. It is the most powerful and effective message of any. I talked to a group of Limbaugh listeners just tonight. They are not on the least oppositional or hostile to what I am saying. The only people who are hostile and argumentative are the "progressives" and liberals who control the discussion within the activist community and the party. I could never convince those people to support modern liberalism, and I refuse to engage in partisan bickering or
So, yes, it is true, with people here and with many activists off line, who are relatively upscale and successful with status and a stake in the system as it is, "this kind of rhetoric or tactical approach" falls on deaf ears. But that is only 10% of the population or so. The rest of the people are desperate to hear this message. There is another 10% on the right who won't listen either. But the 80% outside of those two groups? They are starved for this message and extremely anxious to hear it and alert and supportive and enthusiastic when they do hear it.

It is much easier for me to convert a Republican voting Fox watching person to socialism than it is to persuade most upscale and educated liberals and party activists to anything even vaguely or remotely left wing. The general public is moving dramatically to the Left. The party and the activists are fighting a rear guard action against that and are promoting a "progressive" version of Reaganomics and the right wing authoritarian model.


...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. They seem to defend their pet issues quite well.

[tonysam]

24. The Problem Is, Democrats Are Between a Rock and a Hard Place.

I am referring to the so-called "blue dogs," the usual suspects who seem to act more like Republicans than Democrats. If they come across as "too liberal," they risk not being re-elected in their very conservative states.

I am at a loss what can be done about it, for candidates who would support what most of us here believe in would not likely be elected to office in those states.

[anonymous171]

11. How can anyone call themselves a democrat and not support the EFCA?

[Enrique]

12. the fight is on, call your senators

the dems haven't folded yet, let's not fold before they do.

[Hawkeye-X]

14. again why i support nuclear option

This is a national emergency and the thugs can go sit in a corner until the next election year which they will be defeated and replaced by a democrat. Once the national emergency is over, the nuclear option can be revoked and rewritten that repukes can never touch it again.

[tritsofme]

18. So you expect Democrats to walk into the chamber and say that we are instituting punitive rules on

the minority.

But these rules are only temporary, and oh yeah, we will also write rules saying you can never do this to us if we are ever the minority.

Do you really think that is how the world works?

It seems clear to me at least, that you have no idea what the "nuclear option" is, and very little clue as to how the Senate operates.

[Hawkeye-X]

25. Dude, when there are time like these..

Sometimes, the rules has to be thrown out the window... everything re-written to make it fairer for everyone involved, instead of these stupid stalling tactics that could endanger the WILL of the PEOPLE that these Congresspeople seem to forget that they are representing, not THEMSELVES!!!

Hawkeye-X

[tritsofme]

26. Well I just don't know what to tell you.

What happens when Republicans are back in power, and they claim there is some emergency, and that the will of the people is being thwarted?

They would certainly rely on your precedent and do whatever the hell they want, and who would you be to tell them any different?

[defendandprotect]

28. OK -- contacted Lautenberg and Menendez . . . hope they were supporters!!!

[bdamomma]

16. Call your Senators now!!!!

[Seeking Serenity]

20. Former Sen. George McGovern is against it.

Mmmm.

I have to say, I was quite surprised to hear radio ads and teevee ads here in Arkansas with Sen. McGovern, a liberal's liberal, coming out against it.

I was also surprised that the opponents of EFCA thought that might be a good marketing strategy here since Arkansas didn't vote for McGovern when he ran for president.

[Enrique]

23. please give your senators hell about this

tell Pryor and Lincoln to get out of Obama's way.

[defendandprotect]

29. What were McGovern's reasons if you recall . . .

Just asking because there are times when things can be twisted so that an honest

bit of legislation works against progressives in an unusual way --

I haven't heard any of the debate on this but because unions support it, presuming OK.

[defendandprotect]

27. "Blue Dog Dems" or others . . . ??? DLC???

Sorry to be asking but haven't seen any C-span in last days --

[McCamy Taylor]

32. Obama owes labor. He better get it passed.