the true American values of justice, fairness, opportunity and equality for all under law.

You seem to have confused the two parties. These are the values that Republicans believe in, and are generally not supported by the far left of the Democratic party.

But aside from that you've got some very good points. I wasn't aware what a poor excuse for a candidate Casey is.

After all, historically speaking, Democrats were the revolutionaries, the progressives.

Um, no. Historically the Democrats have been a conservative but relatively populist party. Anti-business and pro government.

Few believed that John Adams and Co. would win the day.

Yes, but they were the philosophical ancestors of modern Republicans more than Democrats.

Dave

Many, including historian Chuck Pennacchio, with whom I've discussed this, see it differently. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

Um. Weren't Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms Democrats back in the 50s?

I consider them old-school DINOs. Not worthy of my time or consideration.

You have no idea how many points you would have scored with me if you used the term DINOsaurs in that context.

I think that's what Dave meant when he talked about the historical party of the people.

They were Democrats who fall into the Dixiecrat category and their antecedents go back to the Civil War era Democrats who were extremely conservative and quite racist.

NRD and her pet historian would almost certainly trace the roots of the modern Democratic party not to them, but to the progressive/populist era and the days of William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson. That's the origin of the modern leftist party which Helms and Thurmond and others felt motivated to leave, thereby contaminating the Republican party with their moral values idiocy.

The tradition of the progressive democrats is one of big government, big spending, meddlesome foreign policy (nation building), pro labor and anti-business politics. Look at the accomplishments of JBJ for the kind of hell they would bury us all in.

Dave

Mr. Sussman, I am well aware of what Mr. Nalle meant, and his info about the Dixiecrats is correct. However, he is wrong, IMO, about casting revolutinary-era John Adams as being close to modern Republicans. That happened afterward, when the revolutionaries divided themselves into the Republicans (then the party of the people and revolution and included Thomas Jefferson, which has no connection to the present-day GOP) and the Federalists (the conservatives). Sadly, again in my opinion, Adams (who was really a conservative-leaning independent) became a Federalist.

As far as DINOsaurs, while scoring points with you or anyone has no meaning for me, I did make an allusion to extinction within the essay. Even flirted with making a reference to the Flintstone pet, but thought better of it.

In any case, this piece is aimed primarily at progressives and Democrats tired of being mired in a policy of appeasement, a policy doomed to push people-minded progressives away from a party that has no use for us beyond exploiting us for its own convenience.

Ms. Davis,

I'm a syndicalst socialist and only joined political parties to push my ideas. But I do understand a little of the sense of betrayal you feel. The Labor party used to stand for the little guy around here, to the degree that their bolshevik mentality would allow them to. In the eighties, they walked away from the little guy, identifying with the moneyed middle class and the Arabs instead.

Now the only thing they stand for is whatever will get them the Arab vote and some extra scratch. The little guy could drop dead for all they care, and you can see the bitterness all over the country.

Sounds very familiar indeed.

"The Democrats are supposed to be the ones who represent the people - the ones who stand on the side of women, pigmentational minorities, GLBT people, working people, the elderly, the differently abled, the poor."

"pigmentational minorities"???

"the differently abled"???

Hmm...

Where do they stand on straight, white men?

"In its heyday, this party made its share of mistakes, of course, but much more often than not, its missteps were guided by principle, by doing what it thought was right rather than what was expedient or pragmatic or popular."

Sooo...I guess when Democrats sided against Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, it was because they were "guided by principle" and not because they were doing what was "popular"...

Where do they stand on straight, white men?

I hear they're building 'detention camps'...

Hmm...while I see your point about the dangers of accommodation, at the same time I can't see the point of not doing everything I can to unseat Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum. No, Bob Casey does not stand on the issues where I'd like him to stand (I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-rights), but he's marginally better than his Republican opponent. Casey doesn't support teaching intelligent design in schools, nor is he likely to oppose birth control or some other such nonsense. At the very least, Casey's election would strengthen a party that is demonstrably better on liberal issues, and help to bring to an end the frothing Republican juggernaut currently stampeding through Washington.

Moving too far to the center does have its perils, I agree, but I can't see standing behind a principle that by November will see Rick Santorum firmly ensconced for a third term.

Slick moniker, Rictus,

You wrote,

"Where do they stand on straight, white men?

I hear they're building 'detention camps'..."

They are not the DINOsaurs or the GOP, but they are building detention camps. Most are built already. And the camps are not for "straight white men" or Arabs or blacks.

There are presently "quarantine rooms" in almost all airports. Ask airport officials about them, and if they admit to their existence at all, they will tell you it is a preparation for the bird flu. But any room where you can be locked in from the outside is, for practical purposes, a jail.

But I don't want to hi-jack this article from Ms. Davis.

Trackerneil wrote: Moving too far to the center does have its perils, I agree, but I can't see standing behind a principle that by November will see Rick Santorum firmly ensconced for a third term.

Question is whether Casey will beat Santorum with an "I'm hardly any different" campaign. On the other hand, a Zogby poll shows that Pennacchio does better than Casey vs. Santorum once the candidates positions are known.

Casey is symptomatic of a problem that's developing in the Democratic party overall. A lot of their new candidates are like him - way more conservative than I'd ever have expected. The number of pro-life democrats running for office is particularly dismaying.

Dave

They're DINOs, and that is exactly the problem. Not that they are the problem, specifically; people should be free to run on their beliefs. But the party backs these candiates using the cynical logic that they're "winnable," "viable" candidates. And I don't buy that. Pennacchio knows how to win elections; he's proven that with his record as a campaign organizer. His beliefs are in line with supposedly core Democratic parties. The impartial poll to which Thomas Newphew refers shows the people support Chuck when they contrast his positions against Santorum's and Casey's. Yet the party backs DINO Casey. It's infuriating. And when Casey eventually loses, the idiots will choose another GOP-lite candidate under their delusion that genuine Dems are not viable. And thenthey wonder why people are going to other parties that actually represent their interests and principles.

Mr. Trackerneil, if one's positions change based on someone's perceived "winnability," they aren't principles at all. If a person believes something, it they have even a shred of integrity, they stick with those beliefs and with candidates who share them.

NRD, these 'DINOs' certainly aren't Republicans in Democrat clothing. They're something else alltogether and they seem to be growing in numbers. Maybe it's time for a new political party where your DINOs, the Neocons and the religious right can all find common ground together.

Dave

Some assuredly are closer to being GOPsters than Democrats. But whatever they are, I don't want to be anywhere near them, politically speaking. If they opt to start something to include them, the neocons and the religious wrong, that would be, at least, honest. But I don't expect honor or integrity from them.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could put people in the political party where they belong rather than relying on them to do the right thing and form the party for themselves.

Dave

An interesting thought, but as one who spends an awful lot of time battling the misassumptions and miscategorizations others impose on me for their comfort and convenience, I can tell you (and I doubt you're serious about it, anyway) that that would be terrible. That's why, nearly 30 years ago, I left a Republican Party I saw running off its tracks and why, nearly 10 years ago, I fled a careening Democratic Party. As noted, I won't align with the Greens or any other political party because it's only a matter of time before they abandon their principles too. As Thomas Jefferson noted (and this is a paraphrase), even groups formed with the best of intentions and the most sincere principles become corrupted over time. Personally, I wish parties would dissolve entirely, but that's not going to happen.

Actually, if the parties did dissolve alltogether they'd likely reform, but the way they realigned would probably be much more representative of the real divisions in the voting public than the current mess is.

Dave

And then they would become corrupted as well.

well democratic party you speak of, i.e. freedom, for gays, disabled, workers, never existed, in fact no party in this country ever approached these terms. Also, the parties around the world that claimed to be for "workers", were the worst abusers of human rights. also, populism should not be equated with caring for people, populist politicians are often highly destructive because what people demand and what is actually reasonable are two different things. The unions claim that they help the workers but all they do is destroy job creation and cheat non-union workers. The gays, oft discussed are not such victims after all, look at NY gays, affluent, self-promoting, hardly discriminated group.

Well, I don't know about these polls showing Penacchio ahead of Santorum...can you provide a link? Everything I've seen indicates that Casey is the candidate most likely to beat Santorum, but perhaps I've not looked hard enough.

NR Davis said:

"if one's positions change based on someone's perceived "winnability," they aren't principles at all. If a person believes something, it they have even a shred of integrity, they stick with those beliefs and with candidates who share them."

But here we disagree, because I don't think most politicians, liberal or conservative, operate accordingly to principles. That's not to say these men and women don't HAVE principles, but when it comes to keeping their offices, they choose pragmatism almost every time. That being the case, as a voter I, too, must operate at least partly out of pragmatism. As far as I can see, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania (and, indeed, the nation) would be better served by Casey than Santorum. Heck, even Kate Michelman has said this.

Here ya go.

Hmm...so this is a poll run by an agency that touts itself progressive? That's got me a bit suspicious, particularly since it runs counter to any of the other polls I've seen. For example, here

is a Quinnipiac poll that puts Casey ahead of Santorum. If you Google for other polls, you'll find pretty much the same thing. Therefore, I can't help but think that the poll to which you linked is a bit suspect.

RJ,

"Where do they stand on straight, white men?"

Are they in danger?

No, Zogby - independent, unbiased pollster - conducted the survey. OpEdNews, definitely left-wing, paid for it along with a local university, but they enlisted Zogby's services so that they could avoid questions of bias. Again, the issue is one of name recognition. The Zogby poll showed that once people get beyond names and focus on actual issues, they tend to line up with Pennacchio.

Ms. Davis,

If you wish to rely upon Zogby as a pollster giving you information on the race you mention, I guess you lose little. But Zogby is hardly unbiased or impartial - at least on matter relating to this neck of the woods.

Hhag Purím Sameáhh
Reuven

OK, NR Davis, I'll accept for the sake of argument that the Zogby poll is relatively bias-free. How do you then explain the numerous other polls? Seems to me that one poll can be wrong, but in many the truth can be found. While it's true that the wording of the questions affects the value of the poll, at the same time these pro-Casey polls seem to reflect other trends. Casey got a record number of votes in his last statewide campaign, which would seem to indicate he's fairly popular in the Keystone State. In addition, he has been ahead of Santorum since he announced his candidacy. These other factors must be considered when evaluating any poll.

The Zogby poll is just an awfully slender thread on which to hang the argument that Penacchio or Sandals can defeat Santorum.

I don't remember the last time the word 'Democrat' and 'Progressive' belonged in the same sentence.

I agree with you on a lot of points, and at the same time I share your frustration with the Democratic Party. Though I have long since abandoned hope I could ever feel represented by one, except maybe Kucinich - on a particularly liberal day.