• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Democratic Party's Civil War is here

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sunday, November 09, 2014
The Democratic Party’s Civil War is Here

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 3 Comments

There are really two Democratic parties.

One is the old corrupt party of thieves and crooks. Its politicians, black and white, are the products of political machines. They believe in absolutely nothing. They can go from being Dixiecrats to crying racism, from running on family values to pushing gay marriage and the War on Women.

They will say absolutely anything to get elected.

Cunning, but not bright, they are able campaigners. Reformers underestimate them at their own peril because they are determined to win at all costs.

The other Democratic Party is progressive. Its members are radical leftists working within the system. They are natural technocrats and their agendas are full of big projects. They function as community organizers, radicalizing and transforming neighborhoods, cities, states and even the country.

They want to win, but it’s a subset of their bigger agenda. Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.

Sometimes the two Democratic parties blend together really well. Bill Clinton combined the good ol' boy corruption and radical leftist politics of both parties into one package. The secret to his success was that he understood that most Democrats, voters or politicians, didn’t care about his politics, they wanted more practical things. He made sure that his leftist radicalism played second fiddle to their corruption.

Bill Clinton convinced old Dems that he was their man first. Obama stopped pretending to be anything but a hard core progressive.

The 2014 election was a collision course between the two Democratic parties. The aides and staffers spilling dirt into the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico reveal that the crackup had been coming for some time now. Now the two Democratic parties are coming apart.

Reid is blaming Obama. The White House is blaming Reid. This isn’t just a showdown between two arrogant men. It’s a battle between two ideas of what the Democratic Party should be.

Senate Dems chose to back away from Obama to appeal to Middle America. Obama wanted to double down on his 2012 strategy of energizing the base at the expense of moderate voters. Reid and his gang are complaining that Obama didn’t back away far enough from them. Instead he reminded voters in the final stretch that the senators were there to pass his agenda. Obama’s people are dismissing them as cowards for not taking him to battleground states and running on positions even further to the left.

Reid’s people think that Obama deliberately tied them to him and that’s probably true. It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning.

The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda.

Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy. In the time honored tradition of the radical left, Obama would rather have a Republican senate than a Democratic senate won by going to the center.

Republicans benefited from a Democratic civil war. They were running a traditional campaign against a more traditional part of the Democratic Party. They didn’t really beat the left. They beat the old Dems.

The old Dems were crippled by the progressive agenda. They were pretending to be moderates while ObamaCare, illegal alien amnesty and gay marriage were looking over their shoulders. They married Obama and it was too late for them to get a divorce. And it doesn’t look any better down the road.

The Clintons became the public face of the Democrats, but Instead of turning things around, they presided over a series of defeats. Bill Clinton couldn’t even save Mark Pryor in Arkansas. Not only that, he had to watch Republicans take every congressional seat in Arkansas and the governor’s mansion.

Bill had wanted Hillary to play Sarah Palin, turning her into a kingmaker and building on a narrative of female empowerment by having her back female senators. Instead Kay Hagan, Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes and Amanda Curtis lost. Not only did Hillary Clinton fail to deliver, but the War on Women narrative was turned inside out by the rise of Joni Ernst. Ernst’s emergence as the definitive new senator of the election killed any chance that Democrats had of spinning the election results as sexist; even if Harkin’s Taylor Swift crack hadn’t done that on its own.

The Dems had gambled that the War on Women could offset Obama’s unpopularity, but voters were more concerned about the economy than the culture war. Not only novelty candidates like Wendy Davis, but incumbents like Mark Udall, tried for what they thought was a winning strategy.

But the War on Women wasn’t a strategy, it was a fake talking point that their own consultants had forgotten to tell them was disinformation that they had created to seed the media and spread fear among Republicans. Romney had won white women in every age group.

Increased turnout by minority women had skewed the numbers, but those numbers reflected racial solidarity, not a gender gap. Progressives had not bothered to tell their old Dem cousins what they were doing. The Senate Dems marched into political oblivion by adopting the Wendy Davis platform to the bafflement and ridicule of female voters.

The War on Women meme was greeted with laughter in New York and Colorado. Senator Udall was dubbed Mark Uterus by his own supporters and performed worse with female voters than in 2008. Meanwhile in Iowa, Joni Ernst had split the female vote which Harkin had won by 64 percent in 2008.

Not only did Hillary Clinton do more damage to her brand by failing to deliver white and women voters, but the Democratic Party is stunned, confused and divided. And the damage is self-inflicted.

The Clintons thought that they could reunite a splintering Democratic Party by taking on a Republican midterm election wave. Obama sabotaged Reid to keep the Democratic Party leaning to the left. Reid is now attacking Obama openly in a way that would have been inconceivable a year ago. Obama’s people are returning the favor by going after Reid and Schumer. The war of the two parties has begun.

The old Dems have no ideas and no agenda. The progressives want to get as much of their agenda done even if it’s by executive order and even if it makes them even more unpopular than they are now. The old Dems have realized that they are the ones who will pay a political price for progressive radicalism.

And waiting in the wings is the 2016 election.

Obama has made it clear that he is willing to nuke his own party to get amnesty done. But for the first time his party seems less than eager to sacrifice its short term greed for the agendas of the left. And the only man who could tie the two wings together has emerged weakened from the Battle of Arkansas.

Amnesty promises radical demographic change, but red state Dems want to protect their positions today. They aren’t doing it for the ideology. They want to stay in office. The mutual backstabbing ended in disaster for the Democrats and there’s no reason to think that the backstabbing is going to stop.

Obama won’t just have to fight Republicans for the next two years. He’ll also have to fight Democrats.

0


- See more at: http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here.html#sthash.ziL20WWX.dpuf
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
It's distressing to hear that the democrats might end up splitting the votes between their far left faction and the more moderate forces allowing repubs to take elections that otherwise would have been theirs for the taking.:???: :???: :???:

Signed

OT-Light
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
It's distressing to hear that the democrats might end up splitting the votes between their far left faction and the more moderate forces allowing repubs to take elections that otherwise would have been theirs for the taking.:???: :???: :???:

Signed

OT-Light

Here's the progressive side:

http://www.dsausa.org/
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Andrew Klavan: How To Speak Leftist, Part II

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhGAQD9reOE




TRANSCRIPT:

THE LEFT WING DICTIONARY VOLUME TWO

I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.

Huzzah. And also Hip-Hooray. It’s time for another installment of the Leftese Dictionary. A dictionary of left-wing phraseology is a very important tool now that very important tools are actually running the country. We stodgy conservatives are mired in the old-fashioned practice of using language to convey thoughts and ideas, but zippy, forward-looking, youth-oriented leftists use words that aren’t weighed down by things like “meaning,” or “sense.” They just wiggle their fingers in the air like this so that when they drive the country into the crapper they can say it wasn’t their “fault.”

But with careful use of the leftese dictionary, you should soon be able to put together complex leftist sentences such as “In a country like this, everyone should have free health care,” or “Greedy corporations are causing global warming,” or “I want to make the world a better place.” I know, right now, that just sounds like words being strung randomly together in dithering blasts of absolute nonsense, but soon you’ll understand these are ways of expressing important ideas like, “I’m a better person than you,” or “Give me more power.”

But hold on! Before we can advance to such intricate use of leftese, we have to begin with some simple definitions.

Let’s start with the word “Progressive.” Progressive is a term used to refer to things like cancer or emphysema or leftism — or indeed anything that slowly destroys whatever it touches. In political history, the term progressive replaced the term liberal when people realized liberalism didn’t work. Liberal had replaced the term leftist when leftism didn’t work. And leftist had replaced the term socialist when socialism didn’t work. Socialist, of course, had replaced the term progressive.

Used as a noun, a Progressive is someone who believes that mankind progresses and becomes more civilized over time. Examples of progress can be found throughout history. For instance, the Roman Empire was militaristic and imperialistic but humanity finally progressed beyond it into a thousand years of darkness and savagery. Or there was the Victorian era of sexual repression and racial chauvinism until we finally progressed into the glorious mass slaughter of World Wars, Holocaust and Communism. And then we got the iPhone so… you just have to be patient.

The idea of progress is built into another left wing phrase, “the 21st Century.” In leftese, the 21st century means a magical place of peace and enlightenment. The phrase is found in such leftese sentences as “Putin can’t just conquer Crimea, this is the 21st century,” or “No religion wants to behead non-believers and enslave women anymore. This is the 21st century.” When this wonderful 21st century will actually occur is anyone’s guess. Probably not for hundreds of years. In the meantime, the phrase can be usefully employed instead of taking meaningful action.

But if progress doesn’t come and the 21st century turns out not to be the 21st century, a leftist can always respond by being “smart.” For instance, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton used “smart power” to transform Libya from an oppressive dictatorship to a blood-soaked hellhole. President Obama used “smart diplomacy” to change Iraq from a shaky democracy to a bloodsoaked hellhole. In leftese, the word “smart,” means ineffectual, or unrealistic. Or stupid.

Or progressive.

This is Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hopefully the people are not caught up in the liberals fight to see who can jump off a cliff first..

2z4efyx_zps275ec586.jpg
Free Republic
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Barney Frank: People Voted Against Those "That Would Share Things More Equally"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/07/barney_frank_people_voted_against_those_that_would_share_things_more_equally.html

Share things more equally :lol:
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/11/08/pelosi-and-salon-writer-agree-voter-suppression-explains-dems-midterms?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=pelosi-midterms
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
ranch hand said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/11/08/pelosi-and-salon-writer-agree-voter-suppression-explains-dems-midterms?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=pelosi-midterms

So, she's admitting that undocumented voters typically vote Democrat, for the "freebies"
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
ranch hand said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/11/08/pelosi-and-salon-writer-agree-voter-suppression-explains-dems-midterms?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=pelosi-midterms

So, she's admitting that undocumented voters typically vote Democrat, for the "freebies"

We don't call them undocumented democrats for nothing. :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If blacks stray from the Democrat plantation, they will be chased down, captured and returned in chains...especially those that prove the "war on women" incorrect.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I don't see it happening, but if blacks left the donk plantation in large numbers, it would definitely be a game changer. And if that occurred because of 2 terms of the Messiah, then I'd actually have to thank the fatman for his vote.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
I don't see it happening, but if blacks left the donk plantation in large numbers, it would definitely be a game changer. And if that occurred because of 2 terms of the Messiah, then I'd actually have to thank the fatman for his vote.

Oldtimer said:
that was my plan all along...I'm really quite Conservative, you know
 
Top