What has happened to elected Democrats in Washington? 

With the regular American electorate more closely aligned with progressive ideas than anytime in history, why are the White House and the majority Democratic leadership acting like myopic, center-right holdovers with a minority mind set, kowtowing to the GOP and the Blue Dogs, doing corporate and lobbyist controlled business as usual to the continued detriment of the common good? 

Perhaps, it is long past time for the painful truth.  These so-called Democrats aren't, but are flying under false colors and lying to the people.

Paul Rosenberg explains further at Open Left: "Digby cites a HuffPo story, "Dems' Bogeyman Luntz Schooled Reid, Other Dems On Messaging" that said, in part:

'But the Senate Democrats already knew all they needed about such mendacious methods: Luntz himself had briefed them at a Democratic retreat earlier this year. His co-panelist: Paul Begala.

'Since that January retreat, he has also briefed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) personally, a Reid aide confirmed. The message to the leader and to the Senate Democratic caucus was the same: Words matter.

'.... The Luntz-Reid meeting was also about messaging. The majority leader and the Republican pollster had met several times over the previous several years, although only met once this year, other than the retreat....'

"Then she says:

'There you have it. The GOP messaging expert is advising both parties. No wonder everyone is selling conservative tropes and propaganda and nobody even knows what liberalism really is.

'Ask yourself why in the world the Democrats would be interested in Frank Luntz's advice now of all times. Do they really think he is better at this than say ... the Obama campaign? That the Republican success of the past four years is so impressive that they need to emulate it?' "

"Excellent points--and she adds a few more.  But the problem isn't just what the Dems are doing.  The problem is also what they aren't.  And what they aren't doing is listening to George Lakoff.  There's one good reason for this--he's not the best at the soundbite crafting.  But that's really not the rarest skill out there.  And where Lakoff does excell is precisely where Democrats are weakest--in understanding the logic of their own positions, which is the absolutely essential precursor to crafting those precious little soundbites--and a whole lot more besides.

"Lakoff's first book on politics, Moral Politics, was all about making sense of why liberals and conservatives believed in what they did as coherent sets of beliefs...

"If the Dems had any sort of cohesive infrastructure, they would have jumped all over Moral Politics as soon as it came out and handily won back Congress that same year. (I did my part, I gave it a glowing review in the Christian Science Monitor)  

"But here we are now, a full 13 years later, and they still don't get it, even though many of them now know who Lakoff is.  They still don't understand what he's saying.  They're like a kid, looking through the wrong end of a telescope.  Luntz they understand, because he does what a lot of other people do, and he's successfully sold himself as doing it better--despite the obvious flaw in that logic that Digby handily points out.  That's fine.  He's a microscope salesman.

"But what the Dems need isn't another microscope.  It's a telescope.  They need to see the big picture.  And Lakoff is a telescope manufacturer. But the sad fact is, Democrats don't even realize there is a big picture.  So why the hell would they want a telescope anyways?  Isn't it just an ass-backwards microscope?  With the controls all out of place--if not out of reach?

However, it's becoming more apparent that most of the Democrats in Washington aren't Democrats at all but GOP lite.

And the comments to Rosenberg's posting are enlightening: "We keep beating the poor horse, even though it's been dead for decades. Why? Well, 'cause everyone else looks at it and sees Man o' War, or Seabiscuit, that's why." states one.

This from another: " 'The mistake is in thinking that the elected Dems represent a party in opposition to the GOP.

" 'We have only one party, with two arms: Republicans and Republican Lite. Both get the majority of funding from the same big business and military contractor sources. Both have roughly agreed on how to carve up electoral districts. And both favor the status quo, and staying in office.' "

Unlike most of the Democrats in Washington, there is one elected official  who gets it and that is a self described Democratic-Socialist who appears on the ballot as an Independent.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) understands that he was elected to work for the common good and knows how to stay on message, because he actually believes in the democratic principle of the common good and fights and works for regular Americans.  He is the true Democrat.  Sanders has sponsored a single payer health care reform bill, S. 703.

Here is Sanders in action in an interview with Wolf Blitzer: (some excerpts)

BLITZER: You just wrote this -- and I'll read it and put I up on the screen:

" 'I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly funded, single payer, Medicare-for-all approach.'

You want a nationalized health care system in this country.

SANDERS: No, not a nationalized. I want a national health insurance program which will continue to have privately funded doctors and non-profit hospitals.

The fact of the matter is, our current system is disintegrating. You've got 46 million without any health insurance. More are underinsured. We have 60 million Americans who do not have access to a doctor on a regular basis. 20,000 Americans die every single year because they don't get the medical care they should be getting, and you know what, Wolf? At the end of the day we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other major countries, all of which have national health insurance programs.

BLITZER: But there are a lot of people that don't trust the federal government to do a good job managing their health insurance.

SANDERS: Well, I would tell you this. That far more people look favorably on the Veteran's Administration, look favorably upon Medicare or on Medicaid than they do on the private health insurance system.

People detest -- you know, one of the reasons in my view that Obama is president -- you remember during his campaign he said in so many words, my mom was struggling with cancer, she eventually died. And she didn't -- she had to use half her energy to deal with getting claims from the private insurance companies. Let's be clear. The function of a private insurance company is not to provide health insurance. It's not to provide health care. Its goal is to make as much money as it can and you do that by denying people health insurance.

BLITZER: Here's what Karl Rove writes in the "Wall Street Journal" on Thursday. He says, "If Democrats enact a public option health insurance program, America is on their way to becoming a European-style welfare state."

SANDERS: Oh, my goodness. Well, I mean, the credibility of Karl Rove, who was Bush's guy for eight years leaves something to be desired.

In my humble opinion, George Bush will go in down history as one of the worst presidents we've ever had. And he was advised ably in that regard by Karl Rove. So, what Rove says isn't terribly important to me.

Let's talk about so-called "European-welfare states." Every one of those countries has a national health care program and you know what? Not only is their health system more cost-effective, but what ends up happening, they do a lot better in terms of health care outcomes.

We are 37th in the world, in terms of infant mortality. Do you think that's a good record?