What's More Important---Being a Good Democrat or Being a Good Progressive?

I have to say that I'm more than a little intrigued by the prospective candidacy of Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the 2008 race for the presidency. Don't get me wrong---I'm still rockin' for Barack all day long, but Obama has a 1 in 3 chance to be the Democratic nominee at this point, if you believe in the current tiers of the race.

Here's what we as Democrats might be faced with next year:

Hillary Clinton vs Mike Bloomberg vs Any of the JackAss Repugs running. Obviously, none of us are going to run to the Dixipublicans, but we'll have a real dilemma in left vs center battle. And, in my view, our Democratic nominee would represent the center.

Bloomberg is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, very green, anti-unilateralist, and sees politicians like himself as elected to solve problems---kinda like post-election Schwarzeneggar. And when we have people who run government believe in using the government to solve the nation's biggest problems---well, isn't that what progressives are all about?

Another thing to ponder---is it treasonous of me as not only a Dem voter but a local Dem officer to be having such blasphemous thoughts? I've been straight blue for as long as I can remember, but there's no doubt in my mind that I would cast a vote for Bloomberg over Clinton and others should they get the nomination, maybe even others considered more liberal than Bloomberg. I'm tired of the polarizing, and things need to get done. The planet is in crisis, and so is the nation's health. We need solutions. So, while I think Obama has the chance to be a generational leader, in the FDR/Kennedy tradition, I don't have that same belief about others.

Should I resign my position in the party now, or wait to see if BHO wins or not? In my heart, I'd like to think I know I'm progressive first, Dem second.

Comments

Be independent

Come to the ranks of the Unaffiliated (some would say "indecisive"). You can choose your candidate based on your heart, not party-related guilt to "toe the line."

Considering a non Dem is far less "blasphemous" than considering someone ONLY because of their affiliation.

Oddly enough

When I go into a voting booth - no one from any party comes with me. The Party Police have yet to arrest me for voting for a Republican. (I did it - once. I regretted it almost immediately.) :)

I dont trust him

first he was a D. Then he was an R. Then he was a U.

Once he starts putting out positions on something then we will see who he is.

Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue

"Keep the Faith"

Check out how he governs NYC

I think those are pretty good positions---his record there. Yep, the most troubling thing for me about him was that he supported Bush/Cheney with his endorsement and money for 2004. But that's about it. He was a Dem and couldn't rake through the muck of party machine politics in NYC. So, he changed from Polo to Izod but governs like a Polo.

I'm not questioning what our party stands for at all. I love being a Democrat, and the party itslelf will have to embrace a platform I don't agree with (like how the Republicans adopted the platform of racism after Johnson/Civil Rights and stole the right-wing Dems in the South) in order for me to leave. I'm just saying I can't in good conscience not vote for an individual whom I know will govern more progressively than a particular individual Dem. To me, it's just like how some on this and other boards talk about primarying DINOs.

Is there a difference I'm not seeing?

War is over if you want it.

War is over if you want it.

D R U

Does that make him a Drupal?

There is no difference between...

a good Democrat and a good Progressive, because a good Democrat is a Progressive.
There are a load of diaries over at Daily Kos pointing out all of Bloomberg's faults. Again, I am ONLY interested in the Presidential Race because Edwards is in it. If he were not, I would be posting about Kissell, Miller, Orange County Senate, 100 Counties, etc.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

The main faults I see them pointing out. ..

Are supporting Baghdad Joe and President Shit-for-Brains when they were up for re-election. I know the Kossacks almost singlehandedly drove Lamont into office, so they are obviously still smarting from that. From a a policy standpoint, he seems very progressive, like the new and improved Schwarzeneggar. He even raised property taxes in NYC to balance the budget there.

Not saying I've made up my mind that I'll vote for him if Obama doesn't get the nod, it's just that I'll consider voting for him and check him out properly. But from the looks of it now, there's potential there to have an independent more progressive than "our" nominee. . .AND somebody who can bring people together to accomplish the people's business---not like a pipe dream candidate like Nader.

War is over if you want it.

War is over if you want it.

Head and heart

I'm an independent progressive at heart . . . or some might call me a Libertarian Democrat . . . but I'm also a supreme pragmatist. An "I" might be better than a "D" in some cases, but if it leads to an "R" being elected, well, that's pretty much where I draw the line.

That's where my line is, too

But if I pretty much know that the Dem will not govern the way I want, then why should I vote for him/her? I'm very perplexed by the possible situation. From everything I'm reading, Dem women are planning to vote in such a surge for HRC, that Obama and Edwards might just be pissin' in the wind.

I know much about Bloomberg's positions, and HRC is promising more of the same from the Clinton years. I think I'd rather have Bloomberg than that. The guy does things.

War is over if you want it.

War is over if you want it.

Not in This Lifetime -I-

Dem women are planning to vote in such a surge for HRC

Not this Dem woman.

Not this Dem woman

or this damn woman....either.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Nor this.

at least not until my only choice is between her and Rudi.

Yeah,

I don't know which Dem women they're talking to on that one. I'd have a hard time supporting her.

Or this.

JRE for me!!!

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Questioning the staus quo is being a progessive.....

Being a progressive is being true to the priciples Democrats should all hold dear.

Questioning the direction, the speed and the purpose our leaders embrass is what "The People" have a responsibility to do. That is one of the basic fundamentals of being a Democrat.

A "Progressive" Democrat is simply one who has not forgtten that.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Indeed ...

Well said, Marshall.

Getting entrenched in party policy just because it's party policy is why America is in this mess to begin with. Republicans suck at questioning authority and excel at toeing the line.

Democrats are the opposite ... we suck at toeing the line and excel at questioning authority ... which as Marshall says, makes us fundamentally progressive.

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

What's up with all the anger on Kos?

I posted this as my first entry on kos---user id is brain---and it started a lot of yelling and name-calling. What's the deal---is dailykos overridden with an anger mob?

War is over if you want it.

War is over if you want it.

You have to stick around and stick up for yourself.

But, lately, it is becoming the armpit of the blogosphere. I think Markos has jumped the shark.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Armpit is polite

I wasn't expecting much of a response, esp since I was a first-time diarist, but I got about 60 comments, most of them quite rude and obnoxious, the rest supportive and battling the rude for me. I was labelled a Bloomberg troll, a traitor, and told to fuck off by more than a few people. One person did take the link to my blog and see that I wasn't any of those things.

Here's what sucks and what is great about free speech at the same time. We can have great places for civil discourse like BlueNC where people restrain themselves from abusing each other in an effort to hash things out, and we can also have places like my kos experience. Not that I'm a pollyanna or that I'm going to back down. It just sucks that Dems/liberals/progressives treat each other like that. It's these people, on both sides of the right/left divide, who DEMAND that the atmosphere be poisonous. No fucking wonder the govt is getting nothing done in Washington.

War is over if you want it.

War is over if you want it.

A facinating question, Internazionale

Regardless of whom you vote for for president, I'm glad you're an officer in your local Democratic party.

I think that Dems let the party become a collection of candidates and wealthy donors. Thanks to Howard Dean, Jerry Meek and people like us, an actual grassroots party is reconstituting itself. That's the entity that needs to grow and endure between elections. That's the entity that we need to care about and support if we want there to be change from below.

I worry about Bloomberg being our Perot.

-- ge

Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
http://george.entenman.name

Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo
https://george.entenman.name

Thanks for the support, George

I need it after my kos abuse yesterday.
haha

War is over if you want it.

War is over if you want it.

Exactly, zabouti

I worry about Bloomberg being our Perot.

In this neck of the woods, it seems to be a game to switch one's affiliation in order to vote in different primaries. I don't like that tactic - and that's what Bloomberg reminds me of. The question is - will he draw people away from the Democrat or the Republican?

You've hit the core of my post, as usual

I really think the sustainability of a Bloomberg candidacy completely rests on what combination of candidates are nominated by the two parties. In a Hillary vs Fred matchup, I think both Rs and Ds peel away. In a Hillary vs Rudy, probably more Ds than Rs. In a Romney vs Hillary, probably more Rs than Ds.

And if Obama, and, maybe Edwards wins the D nom, very few Ds will move to Bloomberg, and he'll just disintegrate the GOP. I wrote the post because I think the potential permutations of a Bloomberg candidacy are fascinating, much like if Ahnold could run. It's very difficult for a liberal like myself to justify voting party line with a pragmatic, triangulating DLC centrist like Hillary when faced with an independent-minded exec like Bloomberg or Schwarzeneggar who gets progressive shit done.

War is over if you want it.

War is over if you want it.

Myth

Schwarzeneggar who gets progressive shit done.

The California people I talk to say he's a sham. Talks the talk but don't walk the walk. YMMV.

I don't trust him. Not as far as the distance between here
>>> .v.