Wow. That’s a spin cycle that would put an industrial strength clothes drier to shame. **Sam **said the Progressive Caucus was the far left wing of the Democratic party and you said that a majority couldn’t be a far wing, in direct response to that. Nothing wrong with admitting a mistake, Elvis. We all make them.
So you think the Democrats’ leadership and positions *are * on the “far left” after all, huh? C’mon.
It’s okay to admit your position is based not on reason but on trying to make someone look bad.
The Progressive Caucus isn’t the Democrats’ leadership. Unless, of course, Speaker Pelosi picks committee chairs primarily from that cuacus. In that case, yes, the leadership will represent the left wing of the party. The only reason to deny that would be an attempt to hide that fact from public view.
The Progressive Caucus is, in fact, the left wing of the House Democrats. I’m not offering a value judgement, just stating a fact. I don’t think there is anything inhernetly “bad” about the left. Many of them have reasoned positions, and I’m sure I’d agree with them on quite a few issues, SSM being one. I’d happily vote in favor of SSM as well as ending corporate welfare, and legalized abortion to name another issue. I’d disagree on many economic issues, I’m sure, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have valid arguments to make-- I just happen to disagree.
Come on Mach Tuch, (don’t fear the Speaker)
Just take her hand, (don’t fear the Speaker)
You’ll be able to fly, (don’t fear the Speaker)
Pelosi is your man!
La-la-la-la-la-la-la la-la-la-la-la-la-la
Nice.
Cite? Which others, please? AFAICT, Sanders was the only member of the House of Representatives who wasn’t either a Republican or a Democrat. And AFAIK, Sanders and Jim Jeffords of VT are now the only two Senators who aren’t either Republicans or Democrats (and Jeffords, of course, is not a Socialist). In short, Sanders remains the only Socialist in the federal legislature, as far as I can tell.
You need to distinguish between “socialist” as a form of casual conservative name-calling applied to liberal Democrats, and “socialist” as indicating an explicit identification with and endorsement of the aims of the (or a) Socialist Party.
And if you’re seriously claiming that any federal legislators other than Sanders fall into the latter category, you need to back that claim up with evidence.
More precisely, the CPC has 64 members, according to this recent article, and the CPC chairs expect about eight new members in the incoming Congress.
You’re right that this doesn’t constitute a majority of House Democrats. But note that it is greater than the membership of either the centrist-Democrat “New Democrat Coalition” or the conservative-Democrat “Blue Dogs”:
And why would claiming the name Socialist be an “admission”, pray tell?
According to their web site it’s 62. But no matter-- close enough for government work. 
I’m not sure about the math in that article you linked to, though. He claims this is a big win for the progressives, but even according to him that caucus will gain ~8 members while the Blue Dogs and the NDC together get ~12 new members. Seems like both sides are engaging in some spin. I wonder if anyone has done a Congressman by Congressman analysis of the new folks in the House to see whether they shift the House Dems to the left, the right, or stay about the same.
[nitpick]Sanders is taking the retiring Jeffords’ seat.[/nitpick]
And Lieberman is, to nitpickers, a (the?) member of the Lieberman for Connecticut Party.
He seems to give every indication of wishing to officially rejoin the party; they seem to give every indication of letting him.
Oh right, thanks for catching that. (Duh Kimstu, there are never two Vermont Senators running in the same election!)
Nope. He’ll have a -D after his name.
Oh, so he’ll have a “minus D” after his name? Typical! I demand an apology.
Well, since he got a substantial majority of the vote, there have to be at least a few other people in his party. 
Seriously, though, he has said (repeatedly?) that he’ll be caucusing with the Democrats.
Having read a few of the Sunday morning punidts, the concesus seems to be that the winning ideology on Tuesday was not either social conservatism or progressive liberalism, but populism and pragmatism. I’m glad we now have that cleared up!
Seriously, though, that does seem to make sense. Aside from the two elephants in the living room (Iraq and corruption), there seems to be a growing unease about globalization and issues like healthcare and people are less concerned about ideology and more concerned about just doing something that works, even if it just works “for them”.
Is it just me, or does the Repub panic over Hillary and Pelosi seem to indicate they are scared of women being in power?
It’s just you. The Republicans have nothing against women in power - there are plenty of female Republicans in positions of power. And many Republicans really want Condi Rice to run for President, and in the past Libby Dole has been treated as a serious presidential contender.
The thing that scares Republicans about Hillary and Pelosi is that they are Liberal, not that they are women. Hillary gets a double dose of hatred from some because she’s a Clinton. That’s all. If Ted Kennedy emerges as a frontrunner to run for President, you’d see the same Republicans being scared of him too.
Do you even have to ask when things like this make it into the public discourse?
Not “socialist” now, Sammy? Just “Liberal”? Or are those just synonyms to you?