Why aren't progressives issuing primary challenges to incumbants like Right Wingers are?

[HalfLotus]

The "right-wing" splintered because Bush made a disgrace of the country and the GOP. Perhaps if Obama bends over his lefty supporters a few more times, the Dems will spawn their own version of a tea bagger movement and have ideologically consistent challengers.

I would say the left doesn't have any platform as effective as the one the tea baggers use - namely, embracing the Founding Fathers of the United States.

Lefty Gaia worship tends to be the most powerful psychological driver of their belief, but that movement is falling apart in the US in the wake of Climategate and because of the economic costs involved in addressing the so-called climate change "crisis".

The left pushes its morality effectively with respect to certain issues (health care, etc.), but doesn't really have the spunk of a Tea Party movement which embraces the genuinely American ideals of great men like Washington and Jefferson.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hard-line conservatives prefer authoritarian leadership which leads to group-think

Right, and progressives are all different from one another. Look at what happened when Republicans had both a majority in the house and senate. We had the gang of 14. It's clear to me that the Dims are far more likely to tow the party line.

[David Floyd]

The fact of the matter is that Progressives don't win because they, by and large, can't win. The US electorate is in no way "progressive", or, for that matter, "liberal", when seen as a whole. The only way candidates like Obama can win is in response to 8 years of Bush - and it wasn't really Bush's politics that pissed people off, it was his results.

[Boris Godunov]

It's clear to me that the Dims are far more likely to tow the party line.

You don't get to call anyone else "dim," since you can't even get basic sayings like "toe the line" right.

[Boris Godunov]

a Tea Party movement which embraces the genuinely American ideals of great men like Washington and Jefferson.

Washington and Jefferson would look upon the teabaggers with utter horror.

[Theben]

EVERY group tries to tie itself to the founding fathers in this country, to add legitimacy. Hell, you capitalized the F's, Lotus.

We had the gang of 14.

That "we" being some Canadian group, I presume?

[Drake Tungsten]

Washington and Jefferson would look upon the teabaggers with utter horror.

Why, exactly? Jefferson, in particular, would be far more likely to view our powerful federal government with utter horror...

[Boris Godunov]

The Teabaggers aren't concerned about the powerful federal government. They didn't exist under Bush, after all. They're concerned about a black man being president.

[Theben]

Close. They're concerned about the powerful federal government in the hands of a black man.

[Boris Godunov]

And Jefferson would be horrified that the cause of limited federal government was being co-opted by such ignorant, hateful morons.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Teabaggers aren't concerned about the powerful federal government. They didn't exist under Bush, after all. They're concerned about a black man being president.

Silly me for thinking you might be making a serious point. Lesson learned.

[DinoDoc]

People who use the word "Teabaggers" don't have a serious point by definition.

[HalfLotus]

EVERY group tries to tie itself to the founding fathers in this country, to add legitimacy.

To some degree yes. But when certain folks, Obama for instance, use language like "new solutions for a new world", and call for "sacrifices" of "global citizens" he is challenging the traditional American view to individual liberty and national sovereignty.

Does anyone have evidence to validate the smears being heaped upon Teabaggers in this thread, or just typical poly trolling?

I'm not a huge fan of the movement, but it is encouraging that people realized that Bush era politics was not at all conservative and are moving forward with something a little more genuine. At least until the movement is fully co-opted by corporatist backers and their COINTELPRO operatives.

[Boris Godunov]

[DanS]

It seems like a pretty straight forward question.

The straightforward answer is that progressives aren't a very vibrant part of the Democratic Party.