Why The Democratic Party Needs To Purge Itself Of Corporatist Democrats

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Lieberman, Baucus just to name a few.


<iframe src="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Max_Baucus" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
 
`

when the party is purged of those the left finds offensive, what will be left ??

QueEx
 
`

when the party is purged of those the left finds offensive, what will be left ??

QueEx

A party that represents the people, not corporations.

source: Politico

Poll: Dems down on Max Baucus's health plan

A new poll aimed at pressuring Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) shows 55 percent of Montana Democrats disapprove of their state's longtime senator's actions on health care, while just 34 percent approve.

Thirty-six percent of Democratic voters said they would likely vote against Baucus if he opposed a public plan, while just 12 percent said his opposition would make them more likely to win their support. Fifty-two percent said it would have no impact on their decision.

Overall, Montanans were split, with 47 percent saying they backed a government-run plan while 43 percent opposed one, within the poll's 4-point margin of error.

The poll of 600 likely voters was conducted from August 17-August 19 by Research 2000 and sponsored by Daily Kos.

In a post at Daily Kos entitled "Baucus does not represent his state, say Montanans," site founder Markos Moulitsas said Baucus "continues conspiring with Republicans to delay and kill effective health care reform," and painted the poll numbers as troubling for Baucus, saying "a plurality of all Montana residents (and independents as well) still support a public option."

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, took a similar line, telling POLITICO that "Even in his supposedly 'red' state, Baucus is out of touch with his own constituents if he opposes the public option – so he should embrace the public option, own it, be a leader."

The poll, however, showed that 49 percent of Republicans approved of the senator's actions on health care, while 38 percent disapproved. Independents were split, with 41 percent approving, and 42 percent disapproving – though in an apparently anomalous response to a separate question, 27 percent of independents said they would be less likely to vote for Baucus if he approved a public option, nearly twice as many as the 15 percent who said they would be more likely to vote for him if opposed it.

Baucus is the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the only congressional panel that has not yet moved health care legislation. A moderate Democrat, Baucus is viewed warily by liberals who fear he'll work to pass legislation without a public option.

Baucus officials said the senator isn't necessarily against a public option but wants to ensure the final bill will get 60 votes in the Senate – enough to break a GOP filibuster. Some senators, such as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) have said a bill with a public option couldn't pass the Senate.

“Senator Baucus has been crisscrossing the state talking with Montanans about health care – and it's clear that people want meaningful reform," said Baucus spokesman Tyler Matsdorf. "That's why Senator Baucus is focused on crafting legislation that will lower costs, improve quality and get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate."

Baucus isn't up for reelection until 2014.
 
Interesting numbers with respect to Bachus. But, are all or most all of the "undesireables" facing similar numbers??? As I see it, the major parties are made up of varying elements: right, left and center. If you start purging major wings/elements of your party, will the result be a party more palatable to you, but which can't buy a win; or one that is not only more palatable to you, but one that will dominate for the near future ???

The wing that you seem most apt to peel off seems just an issue or so from aligning with your opposition :hmm:

QueEx
 
Interesting numbers with respect to Bachus. But, are all or most all of the "undesireables" facing similar numbers??? As I see it, the major parties are made up of varying elements: right, left and center. If you start purging major wings/elements of your party, will the result be a party more palatable to you, but which can't buy a win; or one that is not only more palatable to you, but one that will dominate for the near future ???

The wing that you seem most apt to peel off seems just an issue or so from aligning with your opposition :hmm:

QueEx

Landrieu (D-La.) Down
McCaskill (D-Mo.) Down
Lieberman {I-Ct.) Down - Even though he ran as an independent some 60% of Connecticut voters want major health care reform. This coming from a state that is home to many large insurance companies.

I am not a Democrat, many of core party ideas I agree with. Those in the southern states that cling to GOP based on religion, race or whatever will/are seeing what the true nature of the GOP is, power concentrated at the top. Maybe two or three election cycles have to go by in order for them to truly realize that they are voting against their better interests. North Carolina seems to waking up!

The Democrats won big in 2008 in large part on the promise revamp of health care. Don’t let the bought and paid for media present anything different. This was a major component in tackling the economy. It's the economy stupid!
 
Realistically, How can this happen? I'd like to purge the remaining "corporatist" Repubs. The bottom line is the corporations fund both parties, so they will win either way! We, the people, have the power. We cannot continue to allow the media to keep us divided.

I'd agree with a lot of individuals in saying "yes, we need healthcare reform" but how can I trust a rep who recieved $$$ from Humana, Aetna and Blue Cross to make reform for the betterment of the population, and not themselves?
 
Realistically, How can this happen? I'd like to purge the remaining "corporatist" Repubs. The bottom line is the corporations fund both parties, so they will win either way! We, the people, have the power. We cannot continue to allow the media to keep us divided.

I'd agree with a lot of individuals in saying "yes, we need healthcare reform" but how can I trust a rep who recieved $$$ from Humana, Aetna and Blue Cross to make reform for the betterment of the population, and not themselves?

At some point we will have to have total public campaign financing.
 
The Democratic Party is corrupt just like the Republican Party, the only way for America to survive is by and Independent/Libertarian Party movement breaking away for this 2 Party Corrupt system who does not have the best interest of people but the interest of the Corparation.
 
Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is voting on the side of Wall Street and Warren Buffet.

source: Huffington Post

Nelson Flips On Regulatory Reform After Buffett Provision Removed

Democrats were surprised on Monday evening when Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) did an abrupt about-face and became the only Democrat to help filibuster legislation to revamp Wall Street regulations.
The removal of a provision that would have dramatically benefited financial tycoon and Nebraska native Warren Buffett, it was said, played a role in the Senator's flip.

"He was on board until today and the only thing that changed was the removal of that provision," said one Democratic aide, who definitively said Nelson changed his vote because the Buffett carveout was removed.

Nelson did not address the language change when talking to reporters immediately after the vote, in which the legislation was stalled, 57 to 41, with 57 senators voting to proceed. Instead, Nelson said he was worried the "legislation will adversely impact Main Street when the focus needs to be on Wall Street. ... I don't think everyone is aware of the unintended consequences."
His office did not immediately return a request for comment from the Huffington Post.

That said, the optics aren't kind to the Nebraska Democrat. Earlier in the day, Senate negotiators agreed to remove a provision that Nelson had inserted last week, which would have exempted any existing derivatives contracts from being subjected to new capital requirements. That provision had been pushed by Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which has $63 billion in existing derivatives contracts and would have to set aside $8 billion to cover potential losses on those contracts if the legislation were to pass.

Nelson was hammered mercilessly during the health care debate for withholding his vote until he secured additional Medicaid funding for his home state. If that led to ridicule from Republicans, it stands to reason that holding out for financial help for one of the richest financial tycoons in the world won't go over smoothly either. Nelson should be put on the spot again relatively soon as a Democratic leadership aide told the Huffington Post that the party plans to reintroduce regulatory reform within a matter of days.

"As early as Thursday?" the Huffington Post asked.
"Could be earlier than that," the aide replied.
 
Again with Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Harry Reid's weakness is stifling. This fight is even more winnable than the health care battle.
 
Realistically, How can this happen? I'd like to purge the remaining "corporatist" Repubs. The bottom line is the corporations fund both parties, so they will win either way! We, the people, have the power. We cannot continue to allow the media to keep us divided.

I'd agree with a lot of individuals in saying "yes, we need healthcare reform" but how can I trust a rep who recieved $$$ from Humana, Aetna and Blue Cross to make reform for the betterment of the population, and not themselves?


Agreed on all points.
 
Corporatist=Facist

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy. Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism. In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. They advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.

Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment. Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements of the Enlightenment. They oppose liberalism — as a bourgeois movement — and Marxism — as a proletarian movement — for being exclusive economic class-based movements. They present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly governing a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.

Fascists support a "Third Position" in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism
 
Last edited:
Back
Top