I’d prefer a less harsh sounding word than “socialism” but maybe that’s just because the Right has been so successful at badmouthing things they want destroy.
The other day I got a glossy campaign mailing from State Senator Steve Litzow (Republican, 41st LD). It says front center:
As community leaders and mothers concerned for our children’s futures, we urge you to support re-election of Steve Litzow to the State Senate. His record of independent leadership on education and the budget is moving Washington forward without being swayed by political parties or special interests.
Please support Senator Steve Litzow for re-election.
State Representative Deb Eddy [Democrat] & Bellevue Deputy Mayor Jennifer Robertson
To the right it shows Eddy’s smiling photo with a “(D)” after her name. Above there’s an endorsement from the Seattle Times.
Litzow defeated progressive Democrat Randy Gordon by about 200 votes in 2010 with help from Koch Brothers funding, as explained in How the Koch Brothers worked to defeat Democrats in Washington State.
Concerning the issues of Democratic support for regressive candidates, Carol Davidek-Waller writes:
WA blue dogs are all supported by a ‘who’s who’ of corporate lobbyists http://www.thestand.org/2011/08/hobbs-fundraiser-a-corporate-lobbypalooza/ and in DC http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/blue-dog-bark-backed-by-insure.html There is a simple solution to all this. Make them run as GOPs or Independents. (Ishmael)
They are dangerous to the 99% but the Democrat suits like them. They allow the Dems to play both sides; pretend to be populists while raking in the dough from corporations.
The blue dogs are stealing from voters who believe they are electing a Democratic majority.
I wonder how much money Deb Eddy got from the State Democratic Party.
“(DCCC Chairman Steve Israel) is spending gargantuan amounts of money and energy on hopeless Blue Dogs … (rather) than working on winnable campaigns for independent-minded, progressive Democrats,” said Howie Klein, the co-founder of Blue America PAC, an organization devoted to promoting progressive candidates.
“Those 17 Democrats didn’t just suddenly join (Rep. Darrell) Issa’s witch hunt and stray from the Democratic fold. All 17 — no exceptions — are among the Democrats who vote with (Speaker John) Boehner and (House Majority Leader Eric) Cantor most frequently for the far right’s anti-family agenda.”
This is the truth. There are winnable campaigns out there that could really use some help. But these people are throwing good money after bad to elect people who won’t even commit to voting for the Speaker. This is a huge problem that relates to my earlier post suggesting that professional Republicans and Democrats alike believe that the most conservative candidate is always the best.
Some Democrats would argue that moderate Democrats are better than Tea Party Republicans and we mustn’t be too severe on the centrists. But the so-called centrism of these DINOs greatly destroys the credibility of the Democratic Party, leading many progressives and Independents to think there’s not much discernible difference between the two parties. Many would accuse President Obama of greatly weakening and dividing the Party by protecting Republicans from persecution and by triangulating and compromising with Republicans in such a way that the country has moved further to the right.
What happened to the three Road Kill Democratic state senators who voted to approve the GOP budget earlier in the year?
Time soon for a house cleaning.
Maybe if the Dems lose badly in November, the party move back home to the left where it belongs.
In The Truth About Obama’s Tax Proposal (and the Lies the Regressives are Telling About It), Robert Reich uses the word “regressives” to refer to our ideological opponents, who are often called “conservatives.” But regressives don’t conserve much of anything, except perhaps the wealth and power of the privileged few.
Reich points out the lies and distortions in the regressives’ arguments against President Obama’s proposal to end the Bush tax cuts for incomes about $250,000. “The only people who’d have to pay substantially more taxes under Obama’s proposal are those earning far in excess of $250,000 — and they aren’t small businesses. They’re the fattest of corpulent felines. Their spending will not be affected if their official tax rate rises from the Bush 35 percent to the Bill Clinton 39.6 percent.” But regressives such as those at the Wall Street Journal are trying to spin the tax proposal as unfair and as a jobs-killer.
I love the term “regressives.” I wonder if Reich coined it. [Apparently not: see Robert S. McElvaines’ 2010 HuffPost article Let’s Start Calling Them ‘Regressives.]
I sometimes call Republicans “repugs” — and that accurately reflects my feelings about what those bastards have done to our economy, our civil rights, our way of life, and our moral standing. But calling Republicans “repugs” is tantamount to name calling. In contrast, calling them “regressives” is much more descriptive.
I love the term “regressives.”