The Democratic Party might get a little more progressive

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

Two Blue Dog Democrats lost their primaries last night to more progressive Democrats.  Pennsylvania Representative Tim Holden – who found himself in a more progressive district after redistricting – lost to challenger Matt Cartwright.  And also in Pennsylvania – Blue Dog Representative Jason Altmire lost to fellow incumbent Mark Critz after both Democrats had their districts redrawn into one.  

As Harry Truman said sixty years ago – the nation doesn’t want any “phony Democrats.”

Comments

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Given a choice between a

Given a choice between a Republican and a Republican, voters will choose the Republican everytime.

Blue dogs, just run as moderate Republicans, please.

miksilvr
Amen to that, Phaedrus76 . I

Amen to that, Phaedrus76 . I know it is not really a celebratory moment when someone loses their job (or seat), but there is something about Blue dogs losing that makes me hear the base track from Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust" in my head !

Those of you who are able to, please support the two Democratic primary winners in their race this November. I'd rather have a real Democrat in these seats than a DINO such as Blanche Lincoln any day.

polycarp2
I'd be delighted if the

I'd be delighted if the Democratic Party was as progressive as the Republican Party was during the Republican Eisenhower Admin.

Poor Ike. He'd be considred too progressive today to even be nominated by Dems, let alone nominated by wacked out Repugnants.

Today, being far to the right of Pres. Eisenhower is termed "progressive". Progressives of Ike's day must be turning in their graves.

Probably supporting candidates to the left of Obama would be a good thing. It could get us back to the somewhat progressive 50's. LOL

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

antikakistocrat
antikakistocrat's picture
Thom Hartmann Administrator

Thom Hartmann Administrator wrote:

Two Blue Dog Democrats lost their primaries last night to more progressive Democrats.  Pennsylvania Representative Tim Holden – who found himself in a more progressive district after redistricting – lost to challenger Matt Cartwright.  And also in Pennsylvania – Blue Dog Representative Jason Altmire lost to fellow incumbent Mark Critz after both Democrats had their districts redrawn into one.  

As Harry Truman said sixty years ago – the nation doesn’t want any “phony Democrats.”

 

The nation doesn't want Globalist Democrats or Globalist Republicans either.  Come on Thom wake up.

Let's hope they want to END the FED and put an end to the Globalist Agenda.

workingman
workingman's picture
Where is the democractic

Where is the democractic party progressing to?

chilidog
Thank you for referring to it

Thank you for referring to it as the democratic party instead of the "democrat party."

I assumed that's what you intended to type.

Now then, who are the other progressive challengers to blue dogs that I should look into supporting?

workingman
workingman's picture
chilidog wrote: Thank you for

chilidog wrote:

Thank you for referring to it as the democratic party instead of the "democrat party."

I assumed that's what you intended to type.

Now then, who are the other progressive challengers to blue dogs that I should look into supporting?

The story said the democratic party was gettng a little more progressive, my question is where are they progressing to?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
workingman wrote: chilidog

workingman wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Thank you for referring to it as the democratic party instead of the "democrat party."

I assumed that's what you intended to type.

Now then, who are the other progressive challengers to blue dogs that I should look into supporting?

The story said the democratic party was gettng a little more progressive, my question is where are they progressing to?

Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes usually in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.[1] Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization and as an alternative to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues.

Where are conservatives regressing to?  Cave man is the limit.

workingman
workingman's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: workingman

Bush_Wacker wrote:

workingman wrote:

chilidog wrote:

Thank you for referring to it as the democratic party instead of the "democrat party."

I assumed that's what you intended to type.

Now then, who are the other progressive challengers to blue dogs that I should look into supporting?

The story said the democratic party was gettng a little more progressive, my question is where are they progressing to?

Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes usually in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.[1] Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization and as an alternative to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues.

Where are conservatives regressing to?  Cave man is the limit.

conservatives are trying to keep the freedoms and liberties the founding fathers wrote into the constitution.  conservatives what to regress back to freedom and liberty for all. 

again where are the progressives progressing to by using social, political and economic reforms what is the end game where do they want to end up

miksilvr
For starters, chilidog, check

For starters, chilidog, check out the web sites for :

the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) at http://boldprogressives.org/ 

Demand Progress at http://demandprogress.org/ 

MoveOn.org at http://front.moveon.org/ 

I'll add others later when I have more time. 

chilidog
That's great.  Who knows the

That's great.  Who knows the skinny on which blue dogs are vulnerable?

Bumble Bee
Progressives appear to be the

Progressives appear to be the spinless version of liberals.

Note: Progressives never seem to miss an opportunity to "compromise" with radical rightwing nut policies. The consequence is an uninterrupted drift towards the right.

Example: Pelosi taking impeachment "off the able" instead of holding Bush/Cheney accountable for numerous criminal actions; democrats' imunity legislation legitimizing domestic spying by telecoms and taking single payer "off the tale" before  any health care reform debate began. Thanks Barak.

And if "progressives" really wanted to "push" Obama to do the right thing why did they conspire to support Obama, exclusively and dismiss any discussion of a better option?

BTW, Workingman, the right is still progressing in their effort in making a 180 degree turn back to 1789.

Choco
Choco's picture
Yes, these people you are

Yes, these people you are talking about are emboldening the financial terrorists.

workingman
workingman's picture
Bumble Bee

Bumble Bee wrote:

Progressives appear to be the spinless version of liberals.

Note: Progressives never seem to miss an opportunity to "compromise" with radical rightwing nut policies. The consequence is an uninterrupted drift towards the right.

Example: Pelosi taking impeachment "off the able" instead of holding Bush/Cheney accountable for numerous criminal actions; democrats' imunity legislation legitimizing domestic spying by telecoms and taking single payer "off the tale" before  any health care reform debate began. Thanks Barak.

And if "progressives" really wanted to "push" Obama to do the right thing why did they conspire to support Obama, exclusively and dismiss any discussion of a better option?

BTW, Workingman, the right is still progressing in their effort in making a 180 degree turn back to 1789.

In 1789 there was still slavery, if you take slavery out of the equation you had more freedom than then you do now. The right does not want to bring slavery back, however, the right does want to bring back that level of freedom for all.

And no answer to the question where are the progressives progressing too? What are they trying to accomplish?

Excuse typos posted from phone

Choco
Choco's picture
With the advent of the

With the advent of the industrial revolution, people began being treated like a mono-organism, factory worker, consumer. Human productive diversity, small farms, craftsman, were destroyed by mega conglomorates and university economic professors chanted "economies of scale." Now we have intensive oil based mono culture agra conglomorates subsidized by taxpayers to produce nearly toxic, non nutritional foods with non reproducing seeds. We ship manufacturing to the poorest countries with the most lax environmental standards. Why? because the people at the top of this structure get very wealthy and with that wealth they control the message and the cycle repeats like a cancer and will continue until the host dies or until there is a successful intervention. . . . ? Waiting . . . . . .?

chilidog
Will we get to exterminate

Will we get to exterminate the Injuns and take their casinos?

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
chilidog wrote: That's

chilidog wrote:

That's great.  Who knows the skinny on which blue dogs are vulnerable?

My guess is that states where Democrats had the upper hand in the redistricting after the census, will do better at pushing out bluedogs and marginalizing Tea Party candidiates.  My state (Illinois) seems to have worked this pretty good.  I had a very moderate Democrat as my Rep who got swept in with Obama in 2008 in a fairly conservative district.  She voted for ObamaCare and many other items on the progressive agenda, but voted with the GOP on many other issues.  She lost to a Tea Party knucklehead with no experience in 2010.

Redistricting pushed my Tea Party knucklehead into a solidly GOP district to do battle with a more moderate establishment Republican who he beat.  My former bluedog went against Jesse Jackson Jr and lost big.  My wealthy white neighbors are now destined to be represented by former Black Panther Bobby Rush.  My district used to not come within 20 miles of Chicago, but now encompasses a huge swath of black folks on the south side who've been voting for Bobby Rush since 1993.  The population numbers don't look good for the Republican running against him in 2012.  I just might have to run out and get a Bobby Rush sign to put in my front yard.

There was a net loss of one congressional district in Democratic Illinois due to the census and they say the Red states have gained districts, but the lost district in Illinois is essentially one less Republican district.  So, Illinois is likely becoming less Republican and more progressive if the elections go as expected.  The remaining Illinois GOP districts are being further dragged into the ditch with the Tea Party.  Such a shame.

From my persective, I'm very optimistic for a net movement towards a more progressive agenda and further implosion of the GOP due to their inability to stand up against the Tea Party.  I'm curious how anyone else out there is reading the tea leaves from redistricting.

chilidog
Likewise, I think California

Likewise, I think California may be the opposite, in that our redistricting was taken out of the hands of Sacramento.  This is supposed to produce less liberal Democrats and less conservative Republicans.

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
I suppose the whining

I suppose the whining Republicans in Illinois are in the same boat as overmatched Dems in Red states on redistricting.  I suppose the battle lines are literally re-drawn for the big battle for the 2012 Congress.  Should be interesting.