Can we dispel the myth of the 'moderate democrat' once and for all??

#1

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
11
#1
Socialist Party of America Releases The Names of 70 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Are Members Of Their Caucus:

This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. The radical Marxist-progressives (communists) took control of the democrat party some time ago. They’ve only become more emboldened with the election of Barack Obama, who was raised as a communist from birth.

With their new found leader, Barack Obama, the Socialist Party of America felt secure enough to announce the names of 70 democrats in Congress that belong to their caucus.

Other than Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who openly ran as a socialist, the rest of this lot ran as “moderate democrats.”
---------------------------

Co-Chairs
Socialist Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Socialist Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)


Vice Chairs
Socialist Diane Watson (CA-33)
Socialist Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Socialist Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Socialist Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
(his high school nickname was 'Dennis blew spinach.)


Senate Members
Socialist Bernie Sanders (VT)


House Members
Socialist Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Socialist Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Socialist Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Socialist Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Socialist Robert Brady (PA-01)
Socialist Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Socialist Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Socialist André Carson (IN-07)
Socialist Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Socialist Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Socialist William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01)
Socialist Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Socialist Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Socialist John Conyers (MI-14)
Socialist Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Socialist Danny Davis (IL-07)
Socialist Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Socialist Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Socialist Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Socialist Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Socialist Sam Farr (CA-17)
Socialist Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Socialist Bob Filner (CA-51)
Socialist Barney Frank (MA-04)
Socialist Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Socialist Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Socialist Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Socialist John Hall (NY-19)
Socialist Phil Hare (IL-17)
Socialist Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Socialist Michael Honda (CA-15)
Socialist Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Socialist Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Socialist Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Socialist Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Socialist Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Socialist Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Socialist John Lewis (GA-05)
Socialist David Loebsack (IA-02)
Socialist Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Socialist Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Socialist Ed Markey (MA-07)
Socialist Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Socialist James McGovern (MA-03)
Socialist George Miller (CA-07)
Socialist Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Socialist Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Socialist Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Socialist John Olver (MA-01)
Socialist Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Socialist Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Socialist Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Socialist Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Socialist Laura Richardson (CA-37)

There are plenty of senators with the same ideology as Sanders, notably John Kerry and Harry Reid.

Why isn't Nancy Pelosi on the list??

She may not be a declared member but she sure is their leader and there are plenty more democrats who vote with this socialist caucus.

The leftest controled media of this country will describe them as 'centrists' and describe any that is anywhere near the basic citizen of this country who is center-right as 'radical right wing.'

Sadly Tennessee has one rep on the list, let's vote him out next election!
 
#2
#2
I have been saying this for a long time. Moderates are not allowed in the dem party. Hell they kicked Joe Lieberman out.

Steve Cohen is probably one of the safest members in Congress
 
#3
#3
This must be pretty old, because Phil Hare (IL 17th) used to be my Rep. and was defeated last election. He was a terrible Rep, but his predecessor was one of the best.
 
#4
#4
Zell Miller was the last of the truly moderate democrats in DC.

Even Joe Lieberman has fallen prey to the climate change alarmists and I'm pretty sure he's a big proponent of Obamacare, so he's not really a moderate, he's just not quite as far left as the rest of the democrats he caucuses with.
 
#5
#5
I am more worried about the party that can still possibly be saved. Unfortunately the Dems have been long gone for a long time.
 
#8
#8
Last edited:
#9
#9
Just read a NYT op-ed (so take it however you want) that states their polls show that Tea Party disapproval is up to 40% from 18% in the last 14 months. I don't think there's a politician or party that can save face at this point.

Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general

I saw that. According to the small survey sample of 3,000, the TP polled worse than Muslims and athiests. Too small of a sample for conclusivity, but it dispels to a point some people's claim of a majority.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
Just read a NYT op-ed (so take it however you want) that states their polls show that Tea Party disapproval is up to 40% from 18% in the last 14 months. I don't think there's a politician or party that can save face at this point.

Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general

Honestly... if I could have a one sided conversation about you with the power to reach people that the media has... I could convince the country that you were the devil too. Have you not noticed that the TP doesn't answer? They are so diverse and "grass roots" that they really can't. They don't have endorsed "leaders" that represent them all.

The focuse of the TP was and has remained fiscal discipline. Around 60% of Americans if not more agree with their views: smaller gov't, pay the bills, lower the debt, live within means, don't over tax...

But that is an argument that their detractors on the left know they can't win. So what do they talk about? Sometimes nothing... they just throw out terms like "extreme". Sometimes it is diversion... like focusing on the fact that the majority of the TP is also socially conservative.

IIRC, you have fallen to that tactic. Can you name the social legislation that the TP has put out there? I have not seen any. They have remained focused on fiscal issues... but are being demonized by other means.
 
#11
#11
I saw that. According to the small survey sample of 3,000, the TP polled worse than Muslims and athiests. Too small of a sample for conclusivity, but it dispels to a point some people's claim of a majority.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

IIRC, about 20 million people participated in TP rallies. Some have undoubtedly become disillusioned. Many others who never attended share sentiments with them.

When polls ask questions about fiscal policy... about 70% of Americans line up with the TP... yet they have high disapproval? I have given my reason. I will just add that it doesn't help them that the establishment GOP hates and fears them worse than the Dems.

What are your ideas about their disapproval? Would people knowingly disagree with a group that agrees with their opinions, abides by the law, has remained EXTREMELY civil,...?
 
#12
#12
And yeah... the article is biased and frequently blurs fact with opinion. They regurgitate the same talking point condemnations of the TP that the polling they cite reflects.

I am not surprised by the polling though. Again, when you are opposed by a propaganda machine... your image tends to suffer. Some very sane people were once convinced that their future was only safe if all Jews died. Propagand when well done is EXTREMELY effective. Rarely do those being influenced by it realize it.
 
Last edited:
#13
#13
A much better poll would be one that asked "why" people approved or disapproved of various groups. I suspect about half of those who disapprove of the TP cannot accurately describe TP positions.
 
#14
#14
IIRC, about 20 million people participated in TP rallies. Some have undoubtedly become disillusioned. Many others who never attended share sentiments with them.

When polls ask questions about fiscal policy... about 70% of Americans line up with the TP... yet they have high disapproval? I have given my reason. I will just add that it doesn't help them that the establishment GOP hates and fears them worse than the Dems.

What are your ideas about their disapproval? Would people knowingly disagree with a group that agrees with their opinions, abides by the law, has remained EXTREMELY civil,...?

Re-read. I said the poll's size was not large enough to be conclusive. It doesn't dispel the majority claim, but it puts a shadow over it.

Personally, I think the majority IS concerned about our fiscal situation. However, differnces appear when discussing ways to deal with the problem. Assuming all people who are concerned about fiscal matters are in lockstep with the TP's solutions is a leap at best.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
Re-read. I said the poll's size was not large enough to be conclusive. It doesn't dispel the majority claim, but it puts a shadow over it.
Accurate or not, that type of result would not surprise me considering the overwhelmingly negative coverage they get. They don't even say anything and get attacked.

Personally, I think a majority ARE concerned about our fiscal situation. However, differnces appear when discussing ways to deal with the problem. Assuming all people who are concerned about fiscal matters are in lockstep with the TP's solutions is a leap at best.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I didn't say "all". I basically said about 70% agree with them without knowing it.

For instance, most people would probably say the TP opposes all tax changes. I have seen numerous TP group leaders call for tax code simplification, elimination of loopholes, and an end to corporate welfare. If you polled the TP on those issues, I suspect a majority of TPer's would favor a flatter tax with fewer deductions.

Polls continue to show that people believe gov't is too big and spends too much. Even the polls kindest to the left say that spending cuts should be a much larger part of the equation than "revenue enhancements". A strong majority says that cuts should be the biggest thing or the only thing.
 
#16
#16
Jay, if the case had been stated this way: "We believe that total gov't spending should be limited to the annual rate of inflation for the next 10 years"... Do you think the majority would have agreed?

That "radical" House plan backed by the TP... only cut it to about 6% per year. Explain then how the "extreme" labels sticks to the TP.
 
#17
#17
Jay, if the case had been stated this way: "We believe that total gov't spending should be limited to the annual rate of inflation for the next 10 years"... Do you think the majority would have agreed?

That "radical" House plan backed by the TP... only cut it to about 6% per year. Explain then how the "extreme" labels sticks to the TP.


Honestly, most people would agree with only that information. The resistance would come for some when they see exactly what the cuts would effect. People find it fairly easy to support a concept until they see the direct impact on their lives. At that point, they change their tune. It's like a property owner knowing a new dump is needed but opposing it being located anywhere near their property. The devil is in the details.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
I always considered Evan Baye a moderate Dem. (Lieberman too but he was already mentioned).

The dude from West Virginia is one (Mancin?) and good ole Heath Shuler was one.
 
#19
#19
Honestly, most people would agree with only that information. The resistance would come for some when they see exactly what the cuts would effect. People find it fairly easy to support a concept until they see the direct impact on their lives. At that point, they change their tune. It's like a property owner knowing a new dump is needed but opposing it being located anywhere near their property. The devil is in the details.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yep, the NIMPB argument is even more powerful than the NIMBY argument.

Now that I think about it, NIMBY is essentially a special case of NIMPB.

Too bad more people don't understand the concept of TANSTAAFL.
 
#20
#20
Honestly, most people would agree with only that information. The resistance would come for some when they see exactly what the cuts would effect. People find it fairly easy to support a concept until they see the direct impact on their lives. At that point, they change their tune. It's like a property owner knowing a new dump is needed but opposing it being located anywhere near their property. The devil is in the details.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That is true... but the bigger devil is in the demagogury of ANY proposal that cuts the rate of gov't growth. Ryan's plan for instance was very, very moderate. It did not propose entitlement changes for years. It brought us to a balanced budget in a relatively painless fashion... yet Dems claimed it would starve old people or deny children a warm bed.

I don't think the majority would bat an eye if someone went through and cut unnecessary programs like NEA, CPB, et al. I think people would approve of a DC layoff resulting from consolidation or shrinking of depts. I KNOW that most non-gov't employees would approve of a wage freeze until gov't pay and benefits were in line with the private sector.

I think most know that corporate loopholes, favors, set asides, etc should be and can be cut. The only obstacle is that large corporations have purchased the politicians.

If Obama were serious about it, he could turn his prospects around completely. He would focus on that issue and demand "clean" legislation that took away corporate welfare broadly. I am fairly certain he won't do it considering his cozy relationships with many "big business" types.
 
#21
#21
That is true... but the bigger devil is in the demagogury of ANY proposal that cuts the rate of gov't growth. Ryan's plan for instance was very, very moderate. It did not propose entitlement changes for years. It brought us to a balanced budget in a relatively painless fashion... yet Dems claimed it would starve old people or deny children a warm bed.

I don't think the majority would bat an eye if someone went through and cut unnecessary programs like NEA, CPB, et al. I think people would approve of a DC layoff resulting from consolidation or shrinking of depts. I KNOW that most non-gov't employees would approve of a wage freeze until gov't pay and benefits were in line with the private sector.

I think most know that corporate loopholes, favors, set asides, etc should be and can be cut. The only obstacle is that large corporations have purchased the politicians.

If Obama were serious about it, he could turn his prospects around completely. He would focus on that issue and demand "clean" legislation that took away corporate welfare broadly. I am fairly certain he won't do it considering his cozy relationships with many "big business" types.

My response only addressed your short question that a majority would agree with cuts. You are now getting into details. This is where resistance forms. Would a TPer fuss over where the cuts came from as long as their were cuts? I'd say probably. What is the TP's stance on subsidizing agri-business, oil companies, or similar private enterprise? How is this practice fundamentally any different than the subsidizing of GM? Are all cuts equal because they are cuts, or are govt subsidies ok in select instances? See, there lies the sticking point for people. It's going to differ based on individual perception.

I agree the budget is bloated like a run over possum on the side of the road in the middle of July.But, People will have vast difference based on their situation/the impact on them in regards to solutions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
I have been saying this for a long time. Moderates are not allowed in the dem party. Hell they kicked Joe Lieberman out.

Steve Cohen is probably one of the safest members in Congress

Correction, Kucinich high school nickname was 'penis blew spinich.'

Cohen's district is as corrupt when it comes to voting fraud as any place in the country, including Chicago.

Cohen has also voiced aspirations to run for state wide elected office. He's even dumber than I thought if he tries, it's doubtful he would carry any other district than his own.




This must be pretty old, because Phil Hare (IL 17th) used to be my Rep. and was defeated last election. He was a terrible Rep, but his predecessor was one of the best.

Maybe the socialists are counting dead voters?





Just read a NYT op-ed (so take it however you want) that states their polls show that Tea Party disapproval is up to 40% from 18% in the last 14 months. I don't think there's a politician or party that can save face at this point.

Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general

Anytime you read anything in the slimes, believe just the opposite.

Remember Duranty?

It's not about a party saving face, it's about the American citizen saving the nation.

As long as we allow the media aka 'Orwelian information bueau' to tell us who to vote for then we are done as a nation that is even faintly recognizable from not too long ago and nothing at all like what made this nation the greatest, most prosperous and humanitarian in the world.




IIRC, about 20 million people participated in TP rallies. Some have undoubtedly become disillusioned. Many others who never attended share sentiments with them.

When polls ask questions about fiscal policy... about 70% of Americans line up with the TP... yet they have high disapproval? I have given my reason. I will just add that it doesn't help them that the establishment GOP hates and fears them worse than the Dems.

What are your ideas about their disapproval? Would people knowingly disagree with a group that agrees with their opinions, abides by the law, has remained EXTREMELY civil,...?

Not only that they clean up after themselves instead of leaving the scene all trashed out as you will find after leftist rallies.

In nearly every election the majority of the people of voting age do not vote at all.

Some of this is apathy but a lot of it has to do with people who have lost faith in the electorial process.

In 1968 I founded the 'party' party, the 'party' ticket calls for voters to just write in whoever they feel like, just be sure to register and vote and participate some way.

Unless the law has been changed any voter can demand a paper ballot that has a line for write in candidates.

My favorites have been Pat Paulsen and Foster Brooks but Disney characters sometimes.

A while back the Party party cast so many votes for Mickey Mouse that the election commission decided in Tennessee that write in votes wouldn't be reported to the press, it was too embarassing to both parties.



I always considered Evan Baye a moderate Dem. (Lieberman too but he was already mentioned).

The dude from West Virginia is one (Mancin?) and good ole Heath Shuler was one.

So you are saying the 'moderate democrat' should be added to the endangered species list??

Question; what good are so-called moderate democrats if they always vote in block with the rest of the democrats on bills such as obamacare, stimulus and dudd-fwank, to name some of the worst of the recent crap legislation that has been passed.

And that doesn't even take into account little amendments in big bills that pass through often times completely unnoticed by the average citizen such as the 'pedophile protection act' attached to the defense budget bill that trods on our most guarded of all rights, the first amendment which protects freedom of speech.

And you can blame the democrats for blocking all the domestic oil drilling they possibly could for the last forty years, putting us in a very unfavorable position vs OPEC, is a big cause of the balance of trades deficit and contributed to our runaway national debt and the fact that we owe the Chinese communists so much our grandchildren will still be paying when we are dead and gone.
 
#24
#24
My response only addressed your short question that a majority would agree with cuts. You are now getting into details. This is where resistance forms. Would a TPer fuss over where the cuts came from as long as their were cuts? I'd say probably. What is the TP's stance on subsidizing agri-business, oil companies, or similar private enterprise? How is this practice fundamentally any different than the subsidizing of GM? Are all cuts equal because they are cuts, or are govt subsidies ok in select instances? See, there lies the sticking point for people. It's going to differ based on individual perception.

I agree the budget is bloated like a run over possum on the side of the road in the middle of July.But, People will have vast difference based on their situation/the impact on them in regards to solutions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Go for the low hanging fruit then limit growth to the previous year's inflation rate until the budget is balanced.

I think there's alot that can and should be done on taxes to relieve burden and increase revenue. I would like to see the Fair Tax or else a combo flat income/tariff/cap gains system that eliminated corporate and use taxes completely at the federal level. Taxes are simply a cost to businesses... it is stupid to even go through the motions of "taxing" them when it will come from their customers, suppliers, or employees anyway.

If we go flat tax, I'd want a very high standard deduction then nothing else... say between $100k-$300k then 20-35% on marginal income.
 
#25
#25
There are very few moderates in either party. The large majority are for big government. Their rhetoric may fool you, but the majority legislates in support of big government. Then there are a few small government guys like Ron Paul. Then there are a few moderates like Chris Christie and Paul Ryan.
 

VN Store



Back
Top