"They Think They Own The Party"

[Steely_Dan]

The obvious division between the "new" Dems and the "old" Dems reminds me of the last scene from "Platoon." You remember...Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen) is riding in the OH1 (Huey) contemplating the madness that was his experience in Viet Nam. He spoke of how Elias and Barnes and how they fought each other...They were fighting for my soul. And in the end, we came to Viet Nam to fight Communism when in reality, we were fighting ourselves.

I felt compelled to post the following in response to a comment I read on a different thread.

"The problem with the Liberals/Progressives is that they think they own the party."

I find this offensive on so many levels, it is hard to know where to begin. Of course, the Democratic Party is known as the "big tent" party and the party of the people. Even taking into consideration the inherent problems that arise from the "big tent" (all those different nuances completing for the soul of our party), I still find this kind of comment unfortunate at best and completely intolerable at worst.

So, let me ask my "new" Dem friends the following...
Read the list of tenets below and tell me, are these the tenets of the progressives - the liberals - the greens - new dems - old dems...Just where do these tenets fall in your vision of the Democratic Party? Feel free to comment on each one of them and let us know what is compatible with your vision and what is not.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Yes, you are correct. This is an excerpt from FDR's Economic Bill Of Rights. I believe them to be one of the best examples of the tenets of our party. Are these tenets too far to the left of your vision? And if they are, tell us what you would add or delete.

You see, as far as I'm concerned, these tenets are not negotiable. They have served our party well for a very long time and I see no need to "adjust" them for times we live in. Perhaps instead of trying to put the "old" dems out to pasture, you should embrace those things that have made our party the Party of the People.

Or perhaps you have a better idea.

-PLA

[SunsetDreams]

1. Short Answer: I think the problem is Labels, we are all Democrats

I wouldn't delete anything from that list, and in fact I don't know why any Democrat would.

[donheld]

25. Is a "democrat" who votes for all republican shit i.e.

Ben Nelson worthy of keeping?

[SunsetDreams]

26. Maybe you should talk to the voters in his

district. I'm not in that district, and couldn't effect it either way.

[donheld]

27. It's not a district it's a state. It's called Nebraska.

[SunsetDreams]

28. I'm not from Nebraska

and I am not from the district where Ben Nelson would get most of his support either.

[socialist_n_TN]

40. That don't wash. As a US Senator, he has a say

in laws that affect ALL of us. Maybe we can't vote for him, but we DO have a stake in whether he's elected or not and how he votes WHEN he's elected. The same goes for my idiot Senators too.

[laughingliberal]

51. And a disproportionate say, at that.

He and several CONservative Senators from small population states are able to have a very negative effect on the majority of the country.

[w4rma]

39. We, at the very least, don't have to pamper the corrupt little jerk. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

43. No -- infiltration of Dem Party by corporate elite control is DLC . . .

If that's what you want, then the GOP already has it -- !!

But that's what most of us are fighting -- corporate fascism --

[laughingliberal]

52. +1 nt

[SunsetDreams]

67. That is hardly what I said, this OP was about people on this board

In fact it quoted someone on this board directly.
This OP was not about anyone who holds office as a Democrat.
IF it had, and I had said the problem is with labels, we are all Democrats, then you might have a point.

Again the problem is with labels on this board.

[flyarm]

71. + 1 million!!!!!!!!!

[Bluebear]

78. DLC sucks.

For example.

[Angry Dragon]

2. I do not have any problem with these

[dmallind]

3. Question

do you think, and have you ever taken such a stand against, the same words leveled at moderate Dems (frequent on DU, and far worse besides) is equally offensive and intolerable?

If so congratulations on being consistent and I look forward to reading the same.

If not - there's your problem.

[Steely_Dan]

5. Ummm...I'm Not Sure What You Mean...

Can you restate it a little differently?

Thanks...

(Maybe I need another cup of coffee)

[dmallind]

7. Not sure how I am unclear but I'll try

When moderate Dems or centrist Dems or "new" Dems as you so kindly call some fellow party members who may have been the same for decades, are vilified far more aggressively, is that not also intolerable?

[Steely_Dan]

10. Sorry I'm so dense...

I kind of thought that's what you meant.

The fact that they have been treated more aggressively may be a point of perspective. I think saying that "Progressives/Liberials think they own the party" is pretty snarky and somewhat aggressive.

To answer your question. I believe that "new" ideas are important to the party. After all, that is what our party is about. I am merely trying to inspire "new" dems towards those things that "I believe" are important and should not be abandoned. I also do not think that it is acceptable to alienate anyone who wants to be under the tent. So, no it is not tolerable to try and drive new dems from the fold.

-PLA

[dmallind]

13. Thanks

I am more than confident I can find posts ten to one in both number and ferocity condemning the centrists than the left of the party on DU, but unless that becomes a contention I will leave it at that and agree with you - the party needs all of its spectrum and support.

[defendandprotect]

44. New Democrats are corporate -- is that what you want us to support?

DLC is simply infiltration of Democratic Party by GOP corporate values -- !!

Give us some idea of what you mean by "moderate" if that's not what you meant --

Do you support the wars?

Do you support with 76% of the population government run health care?

Do you support Roe vs Wade?

Do you support homosexuals, including gay marriage?

Do you support a Wall Street version of government -- Summers, Geithner, Bernanke?

Do you support DLC/Emmanuel now being in the White House?

[treestar]

4. I don't have a problem with any of those

But then getting through legislation to carry them out seems to be a whole different kettle of fish.

For instance, how would we carry out the right to a job?

[Steely_Dan]

8. I Understand Treestar..

And it is isn't easy. What I hear you saying and it is completely understandable is: It isn't the tenets of our party, it is the method in which we attempt to achieve them. Is that about right?

-PLA

[treestar]

38. Sure, and we've got to fight the right wing to get it!

They can create a lot of obstacles to get over, in our system. Look at how long it's been since FDR said all that! But we've made some slow and steady progress.

[defendandprotect]

46. But do you ever question why Dems don't fight in same way when they're

the minority --

Does that not create suspicion in your mind about what's going on?

[treestar]

58. I just think they are better people

In my day to day life there are people who will do anything to get what they want and others who pursue it but consider others somewhat along the way and aren't into being control freaks either. Authoritarians tend to join the republican party.

It's a long and interesting debate about whether we should use their tactics or not. It seems like they steamroll over us at times. but then we don't want to act like them either.

During the election there were a lot of good debates on it - why don't we dig up dirt on them and fight them dirty the way they do? Yet we think it's wrong to act that way. Always an interesting questions.

I certainly thought very little of the 2004 voters letting the Rs get away with the Swiftboat smear, then, obviously, thought more of them having had enough of that crap with McCain and Palin's assholish remarks. Considering the way the Rs have acted during the past two years, I hope the voters do not let them get away with that or reward them in any way.

[defendandprotect]

63. Democrats = "I just think they are better people" --

I could accept that --

if they weren't taking bribery from corporations --

and if they hadn't been refinancing these wars for 4 years --

and if the wiretapping/eavesdropping weren't still going on -- with new and

broader horizons now aimed at the internet!

And if we had just not seen DLC-deformation of the health care reform that should

have happened --

What we're really seeing is the GOP as the Express to Auschwitz -- and the Dems as

the local to Auschwitz --

Otoh, I agree with you that --

IMO, the only way the right wing can rise is via political violence and stolen elections --

When it comes to computers, we don't really know what choice the voters actually made --

when was our last legitimate election?

And why aren't the Democrats discussing computer voting?

Hartmann says the word has long been out in Dem Party that members NOT discuss the issue of

computers and computer steals! Why? Because evidently the leadership is frightened that if

they talk about it, Democrats will lose confidence in our elections and not vote!!



It's a long and interesting debate about whether we should use their tactics or not. It seems like they steamroll over us at times. but then we don't want to act like them either.

The response has to be legal -- Congressional --

Ban computers --

and, if you recall, when the Dems tried to block anything the GOP wanted done when Dems were

the minority, the GOP talked of ending the filibuster. The "nuclear option" I think they

called it. Well -- why not go ahead and let's have Reid do it! Do what Repugs proposed they'd do.


Some of our liberal/progressive talk/TV shows are digging into the dirt on GOP --

and making quite some fun of it as often as they can. Do you watch Olberman, Maddow, Schultz?

Ratigan?


I certainly thought very little of the 2004 voters letting the Rs get away with the Swiftboat smear, then, obviously, thought more of them having had enough of that crap with McCain and Palin's assholish remarks. Considering the way the Rs have acted during the past two years, I hope the voters do not let them get away with that or reward them in any way.

A jumble of the Swiftboat Smear and the Pro-life Terri Shaivo smear -- all MSM run --

if you watched TV, you saw it -- and with the Howard Dean "scream" thrown in somewhere there !!!

This is runaway right wing corporate press -- and a continuation of Watergate tactics.

Like the O'Keefe ACORN smear -- and the Helen Thomas smear -- and the Shirley Sherrod smear.

The attempt by O'Keefe to infiltrate Mary Landrieu's offices --


But it's also a problem that citizens still have too much trust in government --

and still too much trust in their TV and newsreaders!!

And, that Americans are really too non-political -- that has to change before we can

expect anyone will be coming out into the streets on any issue.

You have to understand that rw propaganda is highly successful --

and ever more so when our Democrats don't respond --

Cheers to Grayson for actually doing so!!


Fortunately, my BS meter has always been set a good deal higher than the public's --

but even at that, I find it's still too low by half!







:)

[treestar]

64. the Dems did use the filibuster

But there's a chart somewhere showing how in the last Congress it has gone way up, and we've seen how the Rs use it every single bleeping time. And in the House they vote in lockstep against every single bill. They are acting like tools - the voters would notice that.

[defendandprotect]

65. Yes -- but backed off when Repugs threatened "nuclear option" of

doing away with filibuster --

Sorry -- I was editing my msg evidently when you posted this --

What you're describing of GOP has been going on for decades ---

and what I'm describing of Dems has also been going on for decades --

too much playing-patty-cake with GOP --

too much corporate money pouring into Dem pockets --

and I watched as Sen. George Mithell, Majority leader then, simply turned

the Senate over to Sen. Bob Dole, Minority leader!


And, much of what is going on is being moved into back rooms again --

that was true of the financial regulations under influence of Dodd -- now

headed for a new career in banking -- according to his staff.

And will probably be true of Obama's brand new shiny "Cat Food Commission' -- !!

Watch some C-span if you have a chance -- three channels --

[defendandprotect]

45. Full employment would simply be Congressional policy . . . as it once was ...

Many of the decisions by Congress have been moved out of Congress --

into the FED which now has long controlled our economic policy --

Economy represents political decisions which have to be made by Congress --

not the FED --

We can "fire" our elected officials -- we can't fire the FED -- though we should!!

[socialist_n_TN]

66. Getting them through legislation would START

by allowing these tenets to actually be HEARD and not automatically rejected as "naive" and "wanting a pony". Who knows? If they were actually given airing, these VERY reasonable and fair proposals might lead to a groundswell of support for them from the public which MIGHT lead to at least SOME steps in the direction of enacting legislation.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Unity Prevails... Divisive Labels tear us Apart....dats not too Smart

[Steely_Dan]

15. Opi...I understand your point and...

I hope what was implied in my OP is that we are ALL Democrats.

[opihimoimoi]

19. LOL, but of course ...we are all in the fray....and we win by fighting in unison

i was reminding ourselves of the value of Unity

[defendandprotect]

47. The DLC-corporate wing certainly intends to divide the party . .

moving it to elite interests vs true "people's" government --

How is that difficult to understand?

Ralph Nader, btw, has been talking about the buying of government for 40 years --

I had no idea that it was such well-guarded information???

Or maybe rw propaganda is even more successful than I ever imagined??

There are few problems ever solved without first identifying the problem --

[WonderGrunion]

9. The difference between us isn't the goals

it's how we realistically expect to achieve those goals. The "progressives" of the party yell to the heavens every time legislation is introduced or passed that is not the complete enactment of those goals.

We "woodchucks" learned long a go that a journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step. We applaud each and every step in hopes that it encourages more steps in the future. The Democratic Party is the ONLY party capable of having the country take those steps. So when "progressives" attack "woodchucks", we see it as attacking any advancement at all towards those goals. And if the Republics win in 2010, they will run the country directly opposite of those steps.

"Two steps forward and one step back" may be agonizingly frustrating to "progressives" but it's the only game in town right now.

Or perhaps, you have a better idea.

[Steely_Dan]

14. Maybe it's a matter...

of urgency. We all agree that what has happened over the past 8 years has nearly destroyed our country. For some, the measure of this destruction requires bolder steps to "stop the bleeding." You might agree (maybe you don't) that the actions taken by the current Administration does not seem to be taking those bold steps. If anything, they seem to have followed so many of the policies that we fought so hard against.

I hope you are right. I truly do. I hope that as time passes, we will see the kind of progress necessary to combat so many years of nearly inhuman decisions.

-PLA

[WonderGrunion]

16. I honestly think bold steps may cause more harm than good

The non-ideological majority in this country can be led slowly towards Democratic ideals, but if forced all at once, a natural instinct to resist will occur. You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make them drink. That will only happen in its' own time.

[Steely_Dan]

18. Well...

It's hard to argue with that. However, if the RW has successfully convinced the wingnuts out there that President Obama is a socialist, marxist, dictator....etc. I hardly see that bold steps are going to make it any worse. Having said that, I cannot disagree with you. There is always the fear of backlash.

[OrwellwasRight]

20. The non-ideological majority didn't resist Bush's "bold steps."

Nor FDR's.

[WonderGrunion]

24. Bush ended his presidency at a 25% approval rating

The "Bold Steps" during FDR's time were Fascism and Communism. FDR was a moderate alternative in reflection to that.

[OrwellwasRight]

29. Not true

Social Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Works Progress Administration and more were all bold. Very bold. They just don't seem like it now because we grew up with them. Workers having the right to organize without being killed by factory owners and the Pinkerton Detectives they hired as "security" was, in a word, "revolutionary." Ditto the WPA -- the US government had never hired people directly to deal with unemployment before. Ever. Go back and read the public debates from the time -- you'll see how bold those steps were, how FDR was called a Communist, and how he went ahead and did the right thing anyway.

As for Bush, you make my point. He was re-elected, or elected for the first time, or re-selected, or however you want to describe it, in 2004. Voters DID NOT rise up against his "bold steps" of lying and taking us into two wars, of essentially repealing the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, of gutting some of our most treasured environmental laws (e.g., the new source rule of the Clean Air Act), of repealing the right to habeas corpus and allowing virtually lifetime detention with no charges ever being filed, of taking the first steps to privatize schools through NCLB, and on and on. America did not rise up. The sheeple accepted it. The sheeple re-elected him. The only reason his approval rating was so low by the end was that the economy was starting to tank and people were beginning to tire of the wars that dragged on without a clear "victory." Having a low approval rating is NOT the same as not being re-elected, nor is it a sign that the American people will turn off American Idol to rise up in revolt and eveb get involved in politics.

[Steely_Dan]

30. Wow...

Well written.

[OrwellwasRight]

31. Thanks Steely_Dan!

:blush:

[Starry Messenger]

48. I wish I could hug your post.

Thank you.

[OrwellwasRight]

61. Thank YOU!! nt.

[defendandprotect]

50. Generally agree -- except that, as long as we have computer voting ...

we have no idea who was ever legitimately elected --

and since both the large computers used by MSM and the smaller voting computers

began coming in during the mid-and-late 1960's, I'd question every election back

to Nixon/Humphrey which was also a squeaker!

Btw, this gave MSM new powers to move from reporting ACTUAL vote tallies to PREDICTING

and CALLING elections and Electoral College Votes --

what we saw in 2000 was simply a reversal of those new powers.

You might also reflect on the fact that all of this has been under GOP control and

the computers began coming in just about the time America was passing "The Voting Rights

Act" -- !!

[OrwellwasRight]

60. Eliminating privatized voting with no paper trails

Yet another victory the Dem House, Dem Senate, and Dem President could have given us, while expending very little "political capital." Holt's verified voting bill could have passed without much of a stir while we still had 60 votes in the Senate. Hell, Obama could even have sold it to the birthers as a way to make sure elections were "legitimate" "in the future." But the powers that be chose not to. Unfortunate choice.

[defendandprotect]

62. Generally agree -- but . . .

evidently there are legitimate problems with Holt's "verified voting" --

it's still via computer, for one --

And, think of it -- even the absentee ballots which are paper and ink are COUNTED

by computer!! It's the computer, itself, we have to get rid of --

Germany has barred them as "Un-Constitutional" --


And that would include, IMO, the MSM use of the large computers -- we have to stop

any more of what happened in 2000 -- Fox/Jon Ellis recalling Florida from Gore --

based on nothing.

Again -- the computers began coming in just as America was passing The Voting Rights Act --

was it really a Southern Strategy -- or computers?

[OrwellwasRight]

76. I'd love something stronger than Holt's bill, but nothing has been

introduced as far as I know.

[sendero]

34. I honestly..

... think that we're going to have to let the Republicans finish what they started, i.e. the destruction of our economy, before Amercians wake up and smell the supply-side bullshit.

I don't think Democrats should help them, but we aren't doing much to stop them at the present time.

Obama has several serious tests on the horizon, the most important (of economics issues) of which is probably how he handles the upcoming expiration of tax cuts.

He has 3 choices:

1) Let them all expire. Middle ground.
2) Continue them as is, DISASTER
3) Let them expire for people making over $250K, like he promised. Perfect.

Based on his performance so far I don't expect much. We'll see pretty soon.

[Lorien]

42. Oh yes it is the goals

"New Dems" wish to service the elite and corporate interests. They want to turn the New Democratic Party into the Old Republican Party. Traditional Dems promote the second bill of rights along with environmental protection and civil rights for all, regardless of age, race, sex, or sexual orientation. If protecting education, health or the environment gets in the way of the corporate agenda "New Democrats" will sacrifice them, while traditional liberal Democrats will not.

[defendandprotect]

49. More . . . "they want a pony" . . .?

"Progressives yell to the heavens every time legislation is introduced or passed that

is not the complete enactment of those goals."

A better idea is a new truly progressive/liberal candidate in 2012 --

[PassingFair]

55. Woodchuck strategy, distilled:

THIS is much closer to the actual effects of Woodchuck legislation
than your creeping acceptance motif.

[sandnsea]

11. I think we've made huge advances in all of these areas

The problem isn't the tenets. The problem is the people who can only see what's missing from the perfection of the tenets, rather than the progress made in that direction.

Actually I'd say there are people who misunderstand the tenets as well. Adequate recreation, for instance, doesn't mean everybody has to be able to afford a trip to Hawaii or no one can go. There's some stuff about selling and trade and the market in there too, not nationalization of farms or anything else. I'll stop there.

[Steely_Dan]

17. Thanks Sandnsea...

By the way...You and I may not always agree, but I find your posts interesting and thoughtful.

Of course, you know that these tenets are from the 40's and the specifics may be debated. I think the point was that the spirit of these tenets are what make our party unique and a reflection of how we feel about the people and world around us.

-PLA

[RKP5637]

12. I like the list! n/t

[xchrom]

21. Recommend

[OrwellwasRight]

22. There are plenty of Democrats who would dispute

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation"

Why else does Ben Nelson have trouble voting for an extension of unemployment insurance or why are there only 30 co-sponsors on a bill in the House to provide minimum wage and overtime rights to home care workers? Why can't the House or the Senate pass the Employee Free Choice Act?

There are a lot of "New Dems" who would rather make friends with business than support and pass laws that help the working man find a useful job that will remunerate him fairly.

[SocialistLez]

23. We Socialists have no problem with this...it's the Dems who are not working toward this

When I say Dems, I mean those in Congress.

They are too busy working for corporations.

When they start working for common people, MAYBE I'll consider voting for more Dems and giving them my time and money.

[defendandprotect]

53. +1000%

[JustAnotherGen]

32. I'm in agreement with the list

;-) Those are the things that I hold true - and those are the reasons I'm a Dem!

[Tsiyu]

33. What gets me: the arrogance and dismissive attitude of moderate Dems

On dial-up, so once a thread gets really long, I have a hard time accessing it. I was able to read half of the "sensible" post and read a reply on there that chilled my blood.

It went something like this: "Oh, people are just upset that Obama doesn't eat the same food as they do or listen to the same music." I actually threw up a little in my mouth when i read that.

In other words, progressives are belly-aching about "trivial matters." "Those childish lefties don't like Obama because he doesn't agree with them on silly things like food and TV shows and stuff like that."


How cold-hearted and dense do you have to be to make such a flippant, ignorant comment such as that one?

Equating people's struggles - to keep their homes, their jobs, to marry whom they wish, to have their wife or mother come home from endless wars, to have access to health care - with mundane issues such as meal choices and musical tastes is the epitome of cluelessness. It shows me that people who post such comments have zero empathy for the struggles of others.

We progressives do not view politics as a game. We view politics as a way to help those who need help, to win ACTUAL equality and justice for all. If these are "trivial matters" to the moderates, they deserve to be ridiculed and scorned here.

If you don't care about the issues that hurt ALL OF US, you can't really call yourself ONE OF US.


K & R

[old mark]

35. Yeah, but they ALWAYS come around when it's time to vote and

piss and moan about us when the voting is over.

They LOVED us in '08, if I recall...

mark
(OLD Dem)

[Tsiyu]

36. True dat. We aren't vital to the party's survival

until we're vital to the party's survival.

Yeah, I watched Obama's speeches courting us - with the empathy for GBLT people and the enmity for senseless wars and the outrage over lack of decent-paying jobs and affordable housing and health care.

He wasn't my choice, but he convinced me he was progressive enough.

We've had enough of centrist politics now. I like some of the things he's done. I am exceedingly angry at the Dem Congress and at him for many, many poor decisions.

He needs to straighten up and fly left. He has nothing to lose. The far right is going to hate him no matter what he does. But the cowards in congress - those affluent pigs - need to have his back.

And that means the moderate Dems - the ones who've "got theirs" - need to hold DC's feet to the fire the same as we do.

If they don't care about the poor, about equal justice, about finding solutions to modern problems without the use of mass imprisonment and endless warfare...... THEY. ARE. NOT. TRUE. DEMOCRATS.

[flyarm]

72. + 1 million!

[defendandprotect]

54. "If you don't care about the issues that hurt ALL OF US, you can't really call yourself ONE OF US" -

That was the thinking I'd always try to convey to potential voters when I used

to compaign for Democrats --

"Politics effects your life every moment of your life!" --

:)

[Steely_Dan]

74. Well Stated My Friend....n/t

[tomp]

37. the problem here is that these are not democratic party ideals....

...they are an part of an outline of basic human (particularly economic) justice, which should be fundamental for any civilized society.

the fact that these tenets have not long since been cemented in our country is not just a condemnation
of the democratic party in particular (though it is) but the u.s. system as a whole.

also note that there is not one word by roosevelt about what actually stands in the way of these goals, that is, the fucking super rich,
period (at least not quoted here).

any party that is not lock, stock, and barrel against the super rich isn't worth shit to anyone but the super rich.

do you see how far the democratic party would have to come before it would be worthy of defense by any civilized, justice-oriented
person?

no, i suppose not, or things would be different.

[defendandprotect]

56. FDR made COMPLETELY clear it was the "Super Rich" . . . and "Elites" ... and

"Princes of Property" who were screwing things up --

You should actually read FDR comments --

You are very much mistaken in regard to FDR -- it was a full time pursuit of his to

identify the cause -- and the "wealthy" were who FDR constantly called out!!



also note that there is not one word by roosevelt about what actually stands in the way of these goals, that is, the fucking super rich,
period (at least not quoted here).


:eyes:

[tomp]

77. ok, i'll check it out. nt

[hootinholler]

41. I would add the right to transparencey in government

Other than that, well, maybe equal justice under the law...

-Hoot

[defendandprotect]

57. Remember when Obama was for "transparency" ... before he was against it -- ????

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. The New Democrats own the party but promise (before elections) to loan it to us occasionally.

[Recursion]

68. Ironically, "Big Tent" was coined about the GOP

And it referred to how they had pro-life and pro-choice members.

[proteus_lives]

69. You seem to be the one bent on creating divisions.

[JoeyT]

70. I'm not on the side of neoliberals, I don't care what letter they go by.

Look at the definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism">neoliberal then look at the definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism">fascist and see if you can spot a difference. I sure can't.

Edited to add: That is to say I agree with your OP. I just feel pretty strongly about supporting the people that don't support those goals.

[nicky187]

73. Concur.

About sixty years later, and we still don't have enough of that Second Bill of Rights accomplished. I'm really afraid for the state of the nation, and for our democracy.

[Blue_In_AK]

75. I wish I could give you 10,000 recs, Steely_Dan