It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A divided party: Progressives threaten Democratic lawmakers

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute "to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform." Today, MoveOn reports that it has received $2 million in pledges in less than 24 hours. "It's a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform," MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben writes in the new email.


Lin k

Well, well, well. Granted, its hardly a surprise to those of us watching from the other side of the isle, but it appears as though the GOP isn't the only party with a significant percentage of membership that's trying to boot 'moderates'. It appears that the loony left is getting ready to mount a campaign challenge to any Democrat who doesn't walk in lockstep with the Obama administration.

The next year or so is going to be interesting. Somebody pass the popcorn.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by vor78]




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Yes, the MSM is trying to spend their time covering a house race in NY that they say represents a Republican party split instead of the HUGE losses the dems suffered in New Jersey and Virginia last night. They're HUGE losses because obama personally campaigned for these people. They're also HUGE because it shows that obamamania is starting to unravel less than a year into his first (and only) term. I (and many others) predict that support for obama's socialist programs will now begin to dry up in congress as more conservative "blue dog" democrats start to slink away. The 2010 congressional elections will follow this trend, resulting in obama effectively being a lame duck president with 2 years left on his (only) term.

After several years of Republicans in office, voters tend to forget why they voted them in in the first place, and some fall for the "change" campaign slogan. After less than a year of obama, pelosi and reid, they're saying to themselves, "Now I remember why we vote for Republicans".

The liberal high water mark has passed, with nothing accomplished except further bankrupting this country. If we can thank the dems for anything, it will be for reminding us all why we don't need or want them running (ruining) the country.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I'm entirely for this on both sides of the aisle. Split both parties in twain.

I'm sick of hearing the word"bi-partisan" and I am quickly sickening of moderates.

That said Obama is not a socialist, he said he was a progressive socialist, but he is not. He's another pandering moderate.

(lockstep, cute reference, is this one of those instances where the thread loses to godwin's law from the op?)



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko


That said Obama is not a socialist, he said he was a progressive socialist, but he is not. He's another pandering moderate.


Uh, what campaign and election did you observe?

Obama, as is the norm for the far left, tried to portay himself as a moderate centrist like Bill Clinton did. Remember the promise of "change" with no specifics that you all bought into?

Pay attention now, the agenda obama, pelosi and reid are pushing is pretty far to the left - socialist - which is the point of the OP, that the real socialists like moveon.org are not upset with the "gang of three" I just mentioned. No, they're after getting moderate dems defeated.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I'm not quite ready to dismiss him as a lame-duck, but otherwise, I agree completely. The Democrats are in the process of making the exact same mistakes that the GOP did in the wake of their victories early in the decade. They've totally and completely misread their mandate. They interpreted 2006 and 2008 as a greenlight to go off the left wing liberal deep end, but in reality, people were rejecting the Republican party itself, not an ideology. Despite the Democrat pundits' (and their MSM lackeys') insistence otherwise, there has been no ideological shift in this country.

You're right. The result will be that the Congressional blue dogs are going to jump ship from every potentially controversial proposal coming from the Obama/Pelosi wing of this current government. In that sense, the current Congress IS a lame duck and likely will remain so until the leadership is either ousted from within or by the public in the 2010 elections.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by vor78]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
I'm entirely for this on both sides of the aisle. Split both parties in twain.


I am, too. We need more choices in this country. The wide views of so-called Republicans or Democrats are too varied to fit under one umbrella. I see this as good news.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
This is what I want, the destruction of both main elite parties in the nation by us the people, that is what I want, so we can truly have choices.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 





Obama, as is the norm for the far left, tried to portay himself as a moderate centrist like Bill Clinton did. Remember the promise of "change" with no specifics that you all bought into?


How very kind of you to tell me how I vote, and what I buy into. Please allow me to state what I believe in my own words, and not yours. I see obama as another party democrat, and I've already stated I wish to see them split.

They are pandering to their base, and that I will never vote for.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



Pay attention now, the agenda obama, pelosi and reid are pushing is pretty far to the left - socialist - which is the point of the OP, that the real socialists like moveon.org are not upset with the "gang of three" I just mentioned. No, they're after getting moderate dems defeated.


Define "real socialist" please. I'm a believer in the 'real' definition of socialism, and I am not too happy with Obama and his administration.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The far left progressives, Obama, and his ilk... why would moderate and blue dog democrats worry about a very tiny percentage of fringed lunatics? Riding in to 2010 and 2012 these progressives are going to be all alone and out in the streets where they belong(well not streets in the US, somewhere else). Sane democrats ought to be worried about keeping their titles and listening to America.

All we have to fear currently is the damage(more of) Obama can do up until 2010/12. Progressives pfttt..



[edit on 4-11-2009 by Tyr Sog]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 

Wow $2 million dollars.

That's less than what Rush Limbaugh gets paid every month.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko

How very kind of you to tell me how I vote, and what I buy into. Please allow me to state what I believe in my own words, and not yours. I see obama as another party democrat, and I've already stated I wish to see them split.

They are pandering to their base, and that I will never vote for.


Please show me where I said anything about how you voted. Only you know that for sure. However, it is pretty obvious where your support lies. Will you try to deny that now as the plans of the far left start to unravel? Real strength in your convictions if so ...



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Seiko


That said Obama is not a socialist, he said he was a progressive socialist, but he is not. He's another pandering moderate.


Uh, what campaign and election did you observe?

Obama, as is the norm for the far left, tried to portay himself as a moderate centrist like Bill Clinton did. Remember the promise of "change" with no specifics that you all bought into?

Pay attention now, the agenda obama, pelosi and reid are pushing is pretty far to the left - socialist - which is the point of the OP, that the real socialists like moveon.org are not upset with the "gang of three" I just mentioned. No, they're after getting moderate dems defeated.


You were directly quoting and replying to me, and you said what you all bought into. That would be where you said it.

To the mods, I apologize for the long quote, but it was needed to illustrate the answer.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


You may be right, time will tell.
One big flaw in this theory is Obama made health care the main theme of his campaign. He made it very clear what he wanted, I don't see how anyone paying any attention could have missed it.
And he won big, BIG! This would imply that people supported his health care views.
It's not uncommon to whip the party ( any party ) into line, Politics is a tough business. One failure of the dems is their inability to unify now that they have power, and that's a big failure. You can bet if LBJ was still in Congress he would have kicked a** a long time ago.
I doubt ideology is behind this, I'd bet it's the same old ties to lobbiests, desire for campaign money and just plain greed that's plagued Congress for years. I think the deciding factor will be Obama himself, can he kick a88 like Bush and controll his parrty or not.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
[
Double post again!

[edit on 4-11-2009 by OldDragger]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


I don't think its a flaw in the theory. You'll generally find that most people are accepting of the broad idea of healthcare reform. Implementation is another matter and that's where the wheels have fallen off the wagon for Obama and this Congress. Those same people who are in favor of the general principle of healthcare reform have seen the actual plan put forth by this administration and they don't like it.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by vor78]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Seiko
 


No, "bought into" does not necessarily equal voting for something or for someone. I only means you agree with their position(s). There probably are many people (far fewer now) that drank the obama kool-aid that didn't actually go out and vote for him. Maybe you are one of those? But why the deflection on if or how you voted? It doesn't tell us anything, except that if you didn't vote, you didn't put your money where your mouth is when you had the chance.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I was so certain I'd already answered this for you in another thread. Allow me to clarify since you did. I have publically stated in this forum that I voted third party and independent this past election. I really do want to see the parties split and define themselves in a more cohesive way. Big tent party theory is corrupting the political arena.

I do not adhere to the left and right view of politics. I always vote, it is my right and duty.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join