"We are witnessing the re-definition of what it means to be a 'Democrat.'"

[madfloridian]

That was said by a DUer, Octafish, in another thread. He is exactly right. We are witnessing it right now. We are being required to accept things that Democrats have never traditionally supported.

It is catching many of us off-guard and throwing us off balance more and more.

We all know that George Bush did not tell us the truth about Iraq. The media was on board with his goal of invasion of a sovereign country. We talked a lot here then about the seeming militant "drumbeat". The day that the news stopped everything but the coverage of our bombing of Iraq...the shock and awe...was a day etched into our minds.

Yet he and his cronies will never be held accountable for the destruction and lives lost by an invasion based on lies. Last year Katha Pollitt of The Nation wrote about how Bush and his cronies are actually leading good lives and prospering.

Those of the "torture creative class" and how they got rewarded.

I should have been a torturer. You too, reader. Well, maybe not an actual physical torturer, because then there'd be a small chance I'd go to prison like Lynndie England or Charles Graner. My picture might be in the paper doing nasty things to naked men with a goony smile and a thumbs-up. I might even have disturbing memories and bad dreams, because surely, unless one is a sociopath, throwing people into walls and hanging them from the ceiling all day is likely to have its troubling moments. What I mean is, I should have been a member of the torture creative class--a conceptual torturer, a facilitator of torture, perhaps an inventor of torture law, an architect of the torture archipelago, a dissimulator, concealer, denier, rationalizer, minimizer and pooh-pooher of torture. As a word person, I could have come up with circumlocutions to confuse the media, bureaucratic phrases like "special methods of questioning" and "enhanced interrogation techniques.

..."Why should I have joined the torture creative class? Because now I would be having a great life.

She then presents the ways that folks like John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz have been rewarded with profitable associations.

There is more.

We are having to watch women's rights be marginalized as the administration and many congressional Democrats act to pacify the religious right. There was even an executive order regarding abortion coverage.

Even more.

We are having to watch as people whom we respected as outspoken Democrats are pushed out because the right wing targeted them.

Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod..out quickly because they were targeted by the right wing.

Yet someone as obnoxious as Alan Simpson is being made to feel safe in his job on the fiscal commission, though he is always saying ugly things about Social Security and seniors. That's because it is our side that disapproves. He will stay in spite of his insults.

And also we have to sit and watch as good teachers are humiliated by having their names printed based only on test scores of students. We need to watch as some of them are forced into an assembly during which their names are called out as they are fired. A whole school, and being a good teacher doesn't count.

We have to sit back and watch the WH Chief of Staff actually brag that they are turning schools over to the free markets.

"In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus."

All the while to add to the outrage, the party leaders frequently refer to us as "the left", "leftists", "liberals" in a very disparaging way.

The right wing extremists are not called out like we on the "left" are. We are nothing like them. Their views are against the poor and the needy, we stand up for them. Their rhetoric has a mean streak toward those not like them. Our side usually exhibits tolerance and inclusion.

As Octafish said..we are in the middle of seeing our party redefine what it means to be a Democrat.

And if we question we are scorned and treated badly by the party leaders.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

5. And I forgot to mention Don Siegelman's treatment.

http://pubrecord.org/in-depth/2023/the-cheating-of-don-siegelman/

[RKP5637]

14. I have no idea what the Democratic party is anymore and I've been one for

decades and decades. If I switch to Independent, then all the Republicans here come knocking at your door thinking you could be made one of them and that is horrible. I need to join the FDR party.

Much like you, the Democratic party has apparently left me. I thought I was kind of a progressive moderate, but then apparently we've been told to just go away, but don't forget to vote Democratic. What a F'en mess. It is so damn frustrating. I have friends that donated thousands to the Democratic party and they are not happy either with the Democrats. So now I think WTF.

[Dr.Phool]

134. Do what you're told and like it, comrade!

I pretty much reached my tipping point in 2006, when I was obligated, as a DEC member to support asshole Jim Davis for Governor of Florida. I'd spoken with him many times when he was a Congressman. He supported the Patriot Act. He was one of 27 "New Democrats" who wrote a letter to Dennis Hastert, begging him to hurry up and bring that gawd-awful Bankruptcy "Reform" bill to the floor, so that they could vote for it. I absolutely loathed this man, and was forced to support him.

Just a few months later, when my party voted to continue funding the Iraq War in 2007, I resigned the DEC in protest. When they renewed FISA, telecom immunity, and renewed illegal wiretapping, I said "fuck it", and switched to independent.

I'll never vote for a repuke, but I'll also never vote for a DLCer, a Blue Dog, or a "New Democrat" either. Read 'em and weep Kendrick Meek.

You now have to EARN my vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.

[INdemo]

149. I am in the same boat ..I see that we have have maybe a total of

1/2 dozen real Democrats in Congress..The rest are corporate rentals..just as the Republicans..If Democrats are pissed now just wait until the Bush tax cuts are extended with Obama's blessings..They are trying to figure out what kind of double talk they can use to get away with this.. but it will happen.
The Democratic party(as we knew it) does not exist any more ..I believe we could have a real progressive party and we would be surprised how quickly we could organize and become a legitimate political force.

[RKP5637]

168. I had always hoped a 3rd party would develop, a real progressive party. I really

think a lot of people would sign on if done right. I actually think some of the frustrated teabaggers really want a progressive party, but they are so severely misguided by being fed so much RW propaganda.

Three parties would mix things up some so you might not get this constant bantering back and forth like we have now. I would like to see the "FDR Party."

Obama had a chance to carve out a whole new and better direction for the US, but the majorities were squandered. IMO, we basically have just the same in many ways... There have been a lot of missed opportunities IMO.

I have stopped all donations to the democratic party. I figure they are so awash in corporate money my 2 cents is needed more by me.

I feel so used.

[INdemo]

211. We as Democrats had it in our power to dominate Washington politics for

a generation or so..After the Bush disaster Obama and the Democrats had that chance. That ended when Emanuel was appointed chief of staff and Obama appointed other Republicans and Wall St. look alikes to key positions..Then Democrats in Congress thought the only way to get reelected was to jump on board the corporate train and ride along with the Republicans..Surprise !! Surprise !!

[mod mom]

270. + 1

[whathehell]

162. The "FDR Party"...I like it!. n/t

[DemReadingDU]

209. The "FDR Party"...I like it!. n/t

[INdemo]

213. I am Democrat that still believes" liberal" is not a dirty word

[FiveGoodMen]

226. That makes two of us.

(hopefully, there are more)

[whathehell]

326. Damn right! n/t

[newspeak]

181. I'm with you-I've been a democrat my whole life

most of my family are democratic and truly admire FDR. some were around during the great depression. But, it started with Clinton for me-I read everything I could find about the Iran-contra fiasco and the PROMIS software theft and BCCI involvement. I followed Danny Casolero's articles in the paper and when Clinton was voted in, I thought "alright we are going to have a full blown investigation and get these bastards, that included "I was not in the loop"-poppy bush. Also, before the election, the NAFTA-GATT was being discussed-I didn't want it to pass-there was already discussions of labor exploitation and environmental concerns. Well, we needed to look forward, you see and NAFTA got passed without Poppy (I'm sure they had his blessing). What Casolero said in one of his articles, is this about circumventing the will of the people, this is about going against congress and about going against the rule of law. And, some of these, I believe, criminals reared their ugly heads in Little Boot's administration.

Now it's the same scam. We must look forward, after so much damage has been done, especially to the american people. We need another FDR in the worst way today.

I also won't change to independent, I don't want any repug phone calls or door solicitations.

[RKP5637]

339. I'll stay democratic too for the same reasons. I'm also hoping we can get our party back. So true,

we need another FDR in the worst way. I keep thinking just how much more are the people going to take before they pay attention to what is really going on.

[HillbillyBob]

182. Im thinking the same thing...but I took it a bit further

that If i change my registration to I and the pukes start coming to my door I would hang a sign like you see around....has a pic of a pistol barrel pointing straight at you and underneath ..No Trespassing...Forget the dogs, guarded by smith and wesson. I don't take kindly to door to door freepers.
I already have no soliciting signs out..the religious idiots used to come knocking and I would point to the sign..We are up a private road too with no trespass signs prominent at the last place you can turn around.
We have one neighbor and have been discussing goin in together on a powered gate for down at that same spot.

[Hawkowl]

70. Truth

In my 26 years of voting, I have NEVER voted for a rethuglican--I'd cut my dick off with a plastic spork before I did. However, I no longer call myself a democrat.

I am a leftist. A liberal. An independent.

[ChiciB1]

152. To Which I Wholeheartedly Agree! Here In Florida Looking At My Choice

for the upcoming Senate race, more and more I'm looking at Crist as a VERY possible vote from me!

I'm FED UP and SICK by the way we've been treated by our very own Democrats AND especially what I'm seeing from THIS WH!!

Count me in with the Leftist, Liberal and Independent class now!! If that means the NOW Democrats no longer want me... then it's CRICKETS for them AND me!!

A VERY, VERY, sad state of affairs! It just blows me away, but I WON'T ROLL OVER!!!

I believe in what I believe the Democrats always HAVE believed... A Party FOR THE PEOPLE!! But that's IS NOT what I'm seeing nor do I like being called names by my CHOSEN Party for all my life!!

I won't take the blame thought, IT'S ON THEM!!

:nuke: :puke: :grr:

[whathehell]

157. Good on you....I feel the same way. n/t

[Raster]

198. We are not alone! There is power in our anger. I agree with everything... except

Mr. Happy and I have been together too many years to let a cheap piece of plastic come between us.

I hate to resort to cliches, but, oh-shucky-darn: I am not leaving the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is leaving me.

[awoke_in_2003]

320. "I am a leftist"

have you had your drug test yet? Mine is tomorrow :hi:

[Sherman A1]

93. You Said it Right

The Party has abandoned us, not the other way around!

:toast:

[Sherman A1]

94. K&R Well Said

I wish I could give the a +1000, but that is possible.

:toast:

[Yuugal]

142. Is that what was said?

One of the bummers of reading this site these days is having to try to guess what thing was said by which deleted person.

[catzies]

195. Was this a deliberate tombstoning, a "DUicide," if you will? I wonder...

A stalwart finally fed up, saying something guaranteeing a final exit? :shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

221. WHO? PM please.

[catzies]

362. No clue at all whatsoever. Just musing. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

322. certainly if they write...

a heartfelt email they can get re-instated. Hell, it works for people who physically threaten other members. :sarcasm:

[NC_Nurse]

2. True. You never hear the Repubs condemn the RW ranters. We on the left

Get no love or even respect from the Dems. WTF?

[pezDispenser]

85. I don't think they publicly condone them

I think the silent moderate republicans have moved into the democratic party.

[TBF]

138. Bingo - this is the piece that some of the dems are missing.

Far leftists called this one way back during the campaign. As they watched the dynamics, and listened to Obama, they became more convinced that many of the wealthy internationalists actually abandoned the Republican party and switched to the Dems. A view of Obama's top fund-raisers confirms it. The democratic party is becoming the party of sophisticated voters who have assets to protect (owners). People of all income levels have been convinced that they should focus on cultural issues - gay marriage, prayer in school, abortion - and divide up based on them. This keeps folks from focusing on economics. When people do focus on economics they quickly come to the conclusion that there is no party for them (and we are seeing more and more posters at DU coming to that realization daily).

[newspeak]

187. TBF, there is no "far leftists"

I was once on the "well reasoned" side. Those who had to have valid reasons to go to war, those who believe social security, medicare are great programs, those who believed that decent jobs were a prerequisite for healthy families, healthy communities, healthy economy, those who believed that corporations usually look for profit (and many times at the expense of others) therefore regulations should be in place and enforced for the health and well-being of citizens and country. Why is that a far leftist stance? I consider it a reasonable stance for the welfare and safety of our country and it's people.

[TBF]

225. Far left as in anti-capitalist, to be more clear.

But yes I completely understand your point that your party has moved from under you.

[liberation]

266. The far left was never a part of the Dem party.

The left in the USA was hunted down to almost extinction for the past 4 decades, never mind "far left."

[TBF]

273. I never said it was - please re-read the initial post.

I agree completely with your statement that the left in the USA was hunted down to almost extinction. But on this website Dennis Kucinich is "far left" so I work with what I have.

[liberation]

279. Uh? Who declared Kucinich far left?

If anything, he is center-left.

I have lived overseas, I don't think most Americans truly understand what a real leftist political ethos is, never mind far left.

PS. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just providing a complementary POV. Cheers.

[fascisthunter]

290. you didn't have to be foreign to know Kucinich was center left

I guess it really depends on where each of us are on this political spectrum. If people like Kucinich are considered far-left, than this political party is the new center right.

[TBF]

308. Which brings me back to the original point....

sorry it took so long to get there but I agree with you both. That is essentially what this party has become - it is the new establishment party, or is desperately trying to be. The wall street bailouts, continued plundering via war in the middle east, rush to privatization on issues from defense to education ... it is all extremely right-wing.

[TBF]

310. Thanks for your comments -

we don't have a labor party here and it shows ...

[inenemyterritory]

3. Not even a word for it,

M$M, is it.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Well said, as always.

[mike_c]

6. excellent post, rec'd!

Spot on!

[Major Hogwash]

7. I won't be re-defined, I'm still far to the left of guys like Rahm Emanuel.

If he is still with the White House come January, then the Obama agenda will end before it got started.
There is no way someone as narrow-minded as Emanuel can speak for an entire country of liberals and think somehow handing out crying towels is going to keep them in office.

Actions speak louder than words.

[slipslidingaway]

8. knr n/t

[bluethruandthru]

9. Great post! K&R n/t

[mmonk]

10. Recommended.

Can I have a witness?

[daleanime]

11. Damn right!

:banghead:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. K & R

[Nikki Stone1]

13. Right on, madflo.

Tell it like it is!

[earth mom]

15. They are hijacking the dem party and telling everyone to like it or shut the hell up.

:grr:

[Octafish]

345. Odd. I don't recall VOTING for any such change.

Something so major as changing the definition of what it means to be a Democrat should have been up for discussion and open to debate.

Instead, the switch was done in the dark of night by persons unknown by name, but obvious by type.

[ThomCat]

16. Our party is being blatantly and publicly stolen from us by people

in our own party, moderates who think that the Democratic party should be Republican Lite corporate party, and they are willing to demonize the left endlessly to make it that way.

They attack us as much as they attack republicans. :(

To hear them talk you would think that only moderates only ever accomplish anything, but they ignore the fact that "moderate" is by definition the mid point between two other points, and their own party has to define one of those two points.

If they attack the left and refuse to allow their own party to provide that one point on the left-most end of the spectrum then the mid-point that they cherish so much COLLAPSES. By attacking the left, moderate democrats are inherently conceding the center to the forces on the right.

They are surrendering the middle to the republican radicals who are willing to constantly push things farther to the right-ward extreme, because democratic moderates have themselves attacked and destroyed all of our efforts within the party that counter-balance the right and anchored all of us on the left.

Without anchors on the left, the center cannot hold.

[RKP5637]

17. IMO the democratic party is in a meltdown and that is quite sad. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

33. EXACTLY what I've said over and over...........

The "compromise" position between left and right is the center. But if it's between the center and the far right, it's the right wing position.

If you're a "moderate" and want centrist policies, you'd better support a STRONG left or you won't get those centrist policies.

[Lorien]

72. They aren't "moderates"; they're good ol' fashioned Reagan Republicans

Try to find any policy of Reagan's that doesn't jive with those of the "New Democrats". Hell, he may have even been more liberal on several issues! The elite have pushed the repugs over the cliff of insanity so they could move the Democratic Party to the hard Right. Now there's no "Left" left in America-which is exactly what they planned.


(And for those Reagan Repugs cheering this hopeless change: Remember, Reagan was the one who ultimately got us into the mess we find ourselves in today!)

[SteveM]

245. You are correct, of course. Been saying for years: the country is NOT polarized...

You must have two or more "poles" for anything to be polarized. We have 1 pole: the Right. They may be broken down into the neo-con Right, the far-Right, the crap-in-your-pants-and-go-to-heaven Right, but it is one pole.

There IS NO LEFT LEFT. You can point to some individuals, some organizations, some minor media. But in politics you only have a presence by the measure of how effective you are in the political sphere. The left has NO EFFECTIVE PRESENCE to measure.

Since the mid-70s, I have seen the Democratic Party rid itself of anyone to the left of LBJ. To date, I have seen NOTHING which would suggest that the DNC, the Obama Administration, etc., have over-stepped their contempt of anyone group or individual who espouses the most meat & potato liberal agenda, and wish to make amends by offering a consolation speech for or recognizing the efforts of notable liberal groups. No effort whatsoever.

IMO, the DNC and what remains of MSM are quite afraid of the far-right, and believe that only some mythical "middle ground" (which by definition does not exist) will save them from an authoritarian right-wing regime funded and controlled by corporate power. They have no use for the Left, and frankly want it to disappear, hence the willing acceptance by Democrats of GOP black-balling of "liberals;" it merely speeds the process up some.

BTW, the "swinging pendulum" of politics is another myth, right up there with "polarization."

[liberation]

271. Exactly...

... I am tired of hearing these "moderates" who turn utterly nasty and vicious the minute you don't toe in their line. Nothing "moderate" about some of their attitudes.

[kctim]

363. Interesting

Do you mean utterly nasty like calling you a Republican? And being so vicious that they threaten to not vote for Democrats?

[The Doctor.]

81. Very well put. I'll have to integrate it with my overall understanding.

Of how this nation collapsed.

[Fumesucker]

18. K&R for the truth..

[glitch]

19. First they came for the Republicans, and we sneered at their sheer idiocy.

((Couldn't say we said nothing))

It was only a matter of time before the corporatists would make their move on the Democratic Party. Divide and conquer, old as the hills. ((of course this lot thinks they thought it up))

[defendandprotect]

43. Corporations were buying government and parties 40 years or more ago ....

Nader's been reporting that for decades!!

[DCBob]

20. Party platforms and priorities have always changed and evolved over the course of time..

If they dont, the party will die.

[madfloridian]

22. This is not evolving. It is absorption by the right.

That is not change. I think you know that.

[DCBob]

25. Its not being adsorbed by the right. that's absurd..

I am sure you know that.

[tkmorris]

26. Not quite absurd

It isn't being absorbed, just offering an alternative to the Right that isn't really Left either. It's more or less right down the middle, which isn't a position at all. It's more of a "Which way is the wind blowing today?" approach. It's bland, it's milquetoast, and it doesn't inspire anyone.

One exception. The party will ALWAYS defend big business because that is where the money is.

[RKP5637]

30. Excellent observation IMO. Agree! And it is milquetoast and uninspiring. The

party direction blows with the wind, but always center or right of center IMO. It's a very appeasing administration weighted to the right. I think it's a mistake. It's also a major mistake to throw part of the party off the bridge. The aim should be one united party. And RW corporate American is not moving democratic no matter how hard they try to appease the right.

[Enthusiast]

100. "milquetoast and uninspiring"

I have never been so disappointed in my party leadership.

[newspeak]

190. when "new" democrats are pushing republican bills

they are republicans--simple as that. NAFTA-GATT, welfare deform bill, telecommunications bill, health insurance deform bill-all repuke bills or DLC bills.

And if the party changes to look like the repug party, does that mean they will morph into one big old party? Well, you sure won't have to worrying about them changing or dying, do you? Or if they morph into the "new" repug party, does that mean the "old" repug party becomes the new "theocratic, loonie tunes fascist party?

[socialist_n_TN]

34. Of COURSE it's being absorbed by the right

(read corporations). The country on ISSUES is left of the Dems and WAY left of the Republicans.

[inna]

74. exactly.

"The country on ISSUES is left of the Dems and WAY left of the Republicans."

It's a fact that has been obfuscated by the corporate propaganda, but it's very true.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newspeak]

199. I just love libertarians

Gee, I wonder where all the teabaggers were during the passing of the Patriot Act or suspending habeas corpus and posse comitatus? Where were they when Little Boots and his ilk were trampling on the Constitution and Bill of Rights--because, you see, they were protecting you like "big bully daddy" and everyone was just so full of fear. Now, the corporations, they just love them some libertarians-as a matter of fact, some fund the teabagger movement. Well, Little Boots said that his friends could police themselves, because they're such honest, noble men of honor--nope they wouldn't harm anyone to make a buck. And the libertarians believe that when corporations sell you poisoned food or kill an entire town with tainted water, that the people will make them go out of business. Of course, by that time your family is dead--but wait, they can resurrect as a new company like Blackwater to XE.

Even Thomas Paine, after seeing his elderly parents suffer, believed in taking care of the elderly--to not allow them to suffer and starve. Of course, we pay into the program, we deserve to receive a stipend. And, I'd rather see my money go to helping, especially those who have lost their decent jobs, to those who are physically and mentally ill, than to a war profiteer! But, hey we need to all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps just like they did in the great depression where the elderly starved, where parents could not afford their children (orphans on the streets) and where the homeless (who once had decent jobs) slept on the streets. Do they, as americans, deserve to die?

I'd say the problem started when the media and repugs convinced some people that government is the problem. Now we are talking about deregulating pro-corporate repugs, so why would they want to convince the people that the government is their enemy? You see, we are the government. It's "we the people", not "we the corporations." And, I believe they needed to convince the people so they could get rid of anything good about the people's government-education, labor laws, helping the unfortunate, corporate regulation,etc. If you really believed in limited government, you'd have been all over Little Boot's for passing the Patriot Act and limiting your freedoms (it's not all about guns). I know a couple of places where those who believe in "limited" government would feel at home-Somalia and Haiti, and there's others. Of course, those countries that seem to be weathering the economic storm actually have tight governmental regulations, like Finland, Canada.

[madfloridian]

215. Oooh! You said "Condescension and elitism". Yep, you did.

Amazing how people are actually proving my point about the way liberals are treated.

[Forkboy]

35. To some it most certainly is absurd.

[defendandprotect]

44. It is hardly "absurd" and has been going on for decades --

the buying of government includes the political parties --

How could you be so naive as to not understdand this?

[grahamhgreen]

62. Purchased by the right, perhaps.

Sold down the river maybe?

[sabrina 1]

92. They do, and that is what is happening to this party. It is

becoming the Reagan Republican Party. And this party will die because of it. Evolving means progressing, not regressing. This party has become regressive and I hear it everywhere I go from people who have been Democrats all their lives.

What really needs to change now, is the base of the party holding on to any hope that the Party they once felt was their party, has been bought by Corporate American.

I hope a new Democratic Party will emerge from the rubble that this party has now become, so that we can start moving forward and start voting FOR candidates, not against Republicans.

I believe that is beginning to happen and it may be painful at first, but it has happened before.

[molly77]

263. Why should we even wonder anymore

what has happened to the Democratic Party? What happened to the Republican Party under bush/cheney?
A frequent commenter on another site who lived in Yugoslavia under Tito and then the break up ...stated that the leaders of the US and Great Britain do not have as much autonomy as Tito did under communism.

If policy remains the same under the Republicans and Democrats does that not suggest that there is no difference and possibly WE are an occupied country? TARP comes to mind.Tax payers don't have the right to question what the banks did with tax dollars. Our election system is a joke. Think Alvin Greene in SC. That smacks of g bush and is wacky sense of humor. Now a bank in Afghanistan is in trouble..Petreus is saying it will affect security.

Meanwhile Social Security is being attacked as an entitlement here in the US.We have to beg for laws to be passed which benefit US. WE are thrown a bone or two. ...but they always always benefit corporations.

[Enthusiast]

98. When evolution consists

of adopting right wing policy the party can fucking die as far as I'm concerned.

Party means more than a big D on a sweat shirt, to me anyway. I do not see this as sort of like college football. The Democratic Party has always had key principles. If they stray from these key principles they are no longer the Democratic Party. Guess what, I don't vote for Republicans in Democrat clothing.

[groovedaddy]

113. The elite of the U.S. has pulled the country to the right since 1980. Federal Dems are

for the most part, to the right of Richard Nixon politically. Call it absorbtion or whatever you want, but it's true.
If they can't have the repubs in power, they will have compliant Dems in power. Look at what this trend has done to working people. Having to work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. Little or no access to healthcare. The rich getting richer with each passing day. This is what the democratic party has adapted to and with which many are complicit. There has to be a better way.

[mrdmk]

285. How about the 1950's Joseph McCarthy un-American Activities Hearings

Blacklisting anybody who could be labeled a communist...

[groovedaddy]

349. That was certainly a lurch to the right...but, alas, McCarthy had no decency and that was recognized

by many people. The anti-red hysteria began decades before McCarthy. The wealthy people who push for this sort of hysteria decided to take a different tac: 1. buy up and use the media to push their line 2. use their vast wealth to corrupt the political system. 3. stack the economic deck to work soley for their profit.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. kick

[Poboy]

23. I am compelled to recommend this OP. -nt

[Jamastiene]

24. K&R

[Jack Rabbit]

27. K/R

Redefining what it means to be a Democrat? How does one go about that?

I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat. -- Will Rogers (1879-1935)

[stray cat]

28. And the response is to put the GOP in office - progressives deserve their future extinction

[Jakes Progress]

37. If newt gingrich registered as a Democrat

and ran on the same crap he always has, would you vote for him?

Is there nothing that someone who calls him or herself a democrat can do that will elicit your disdain and disapproval. If palin became a Democrat, would you vote for her.

These are not silly questions. This is the crux of the OP. Just what does it mean to be a Democrat? Is it just a jersey on a team player? Does the term Democrat mean anything other than "our team"?

[pecwae]

106. Far too many would do just that.

This thread takes me back to the primary season where I read a lot of "say/do anything to win" type posts. It was sad to see that happen. Sadder still and more incredible is reading that "progressives deserve extinction."

[The Green Manalishi]

133. If you said you wouldn't

(vote for Newt, now a Democrat) the first words posted by several of the pseudo progressives would be "Oh, so you want President Palin" and/or "So, you want the Republicans to pick the next Supreme Court justice(s)", two arguments that immediately let one know that they are engaged in debate with a Reagan Democrat.

[Ignis]

186. You nailed it: It's just team sports to some people.

Policy matters. Politicians rarely do.

[sabrina 1]

197. Newt Gingrich used to be a Democrat

And good questions. What exactly does it mean to be a Democrat?

[Jakes Progress]

205. So was phil graham. They left the party

because they said it was too liberal. It seems that many here wished that phil and newt had stayed, that the party had become more conservative earlier so they wouldn't lose these vote getters.

I wish that the people who say they are Democrats but hate liberalism and progressives would just man up to themselves and say they want to follow newt and phil. They certainly don't like the Democratic party that gave us Truman, and Kennedy. Many here advocate positions to the right of richard nixon. But then so does the white house.

[sabrina 1]

267. Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out that that Gingrich is capable of

switching parties, and the way the party is today, he might feel quite comfortable again as a Democrat.

To return to the party that used to represent the people, it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that the party as it is today, does not. And then decide how to get it back on track. For too long the DLC wing of the party has had way too much influence.

Either the base fights for real progressive candidates to replace DLCers and Blue Dogs or I think one day in the not too distant future, since the party has moved so far from its platform, a new party will emerge. It is almost inevitable. One more cycle of Dems in the majority, ignoring those who elected them will probably begin its demise.

[Jakes Progress]

315. Very right.

That is what galls me when we are told we have no choice. That we must vote for DLC or the scary, scary republicans will win. If I don't have a choice, then I might as well not chose.

[Raksha]

238. A very good point!

Re "If newt gingrich registered as a Democrat and ran on the same crap he always has, would you vote for him?"

The answer--from me and I imagine most on this thread--is NO!!! Unfortunately, there are a lot of Democrats who WOULD. I guess it's kind of a conditioned reflex.

[Jakes Progress]

243. It's politics of celebrity and personality.

It's the high school football rivalry mentality.

[Raineyb]

358. People voted for Specter didn't they?

Some people don't care WHAT the person stands for so long as they have the right initial after their name so long as they're not too progressive then that person needs drug testing.

The party needs to figure out who its going to represent or it'll find itself with less and less people willing to go out for them.

[ThomCat]

298. You nailed the problem exactly!

:applause:

About half the people here on DU WOULD vote for any republican who put on a Democrat Jersey, and they would endlessly insult and castigate any of us who insisted that just putting on the Jersey doesn't make someone a real democrat.

"Go Team!" :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

42. No -- that's YOUR response . . .

Why would liberals/progressives want to go backwards --

this is just more fear-based posting!

[EFerrari]

50. LOL

[inna]

76. LOL, indeed. amazing, isn't it.

[JHB]

83. If the response would put the GOP in office, then...

...it would appear that the "centrists" and "moderates" actually need "the left" to get into office.

And given that situation, "deserv(ing) their future extinction" works both ways.

So where is the "pragmatism" in courting a balk from "the left" when it's gaining nothing from the "center" and right?

[DevonRex]

194. Well, now we know...

[Raksha]

334. OF COURSE the "centrists" and "moderates" need the left to get into office,

and to stay in office once they get there. We're the engaged and activist base of the party, after all. But somehow, the DLC "centrists" thought they could keep it a big secret from us that they need us, by trotting out the same old threats every two years.

It doesn't seem to be working as well this year as it did in the past--must be frustrating as all hell for them.

[bkozumplik]

99. and you and your ilk

deserve whatever half arsed trifles your monied masters deign to give you. You'll never get what you want, just what your masters have to give you for show, to pretend they represent you, or even recognize you exist.

Good luck w that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

121. +1

:thumbsup:

[racaulk]

135. That's a very sensible hit and run post.

You seem to specialize in those.

[GeorgeGist]

159. Well at least you're honest enough ...

to admit that Obama is not progressive.

[liberation]

274. Wow.. wow... woooooooowwww....

Geez, now you guys are moving into the "final solution" phase.

With "friends" like you... you guys sure loved the "big tent" when you needed to get a foot in a less tarnished brand than you previous team of choice. Now all these "new" Dems act as if they own the place.

[fascisthunter]

291. you have no standing to make such a high and mighty comment

come down off your stool.

[bertman]

29. I will vote only for Progressive Democrats in future elections and the party

has been told why. If the party chooses to ignore my wishes then they deserve to lose my vote. Any party that supports my progressive ideals will have my support.

If this leads to the extinction of progressives, then, as a progressive, I say so be it.

I will no longer be held hostage by the threat of "but the Republicans might win."

Excellent post, Madflo.

Rec.

[bobburgster]

84. Then you will reap what you sow...

"I will no longer be held hostage by the threat of "but the Republicans might win."

There are consequences to our decisions, but as long as you feel comfortable in your beliefs....it is ok with me.
Just don't come pissing and moaning about the horrible things the Republicans are doing. Think about that before you make your decision.

[Chef Eric]

107. How generous of you to give someone else your "OK" to vote (or not vote) as he/she pleases. nt

[bobburgster]

287. Oh please, step above the literal bs.

You know that's not what I was saying.

[HillbillyBob]

189. Why should i vote for some fucker that does the opposite

of what we want EVERY time on EVERY issue..they are not democrats they are corporate whores. I m kind of sick of voting for the lesser of evils too.
I did not vote for raygun I have never voted for a puke and never will, now our supposed party is the same shit different day look how hcr turned out most all of it was a bad puke idea,,,making familys buy private insurance that is bullshit but that is about the only thing i agree with the baggers on.
I have voted D in every election since Carter.

[EndElectoral]

204. Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils argument....It is wearing on the soul isn't it?

That argument leads to apathy, and I feel we've come to that.

We are told well these guys are better than the rightwing nutcases. This may be true, but I never used to feel like that when voting. I felt there was a set of core Democratic values that were not compromised. I don't feel that any more.

I feel we now are told we must appeal to "independents" and must compromise over and over again (the health care bill comes to mind), women's reproductiom rights, non-accountability for torture, invasion of personal rights, moving away from strict regulatory requirements, and many others. I've seen a party replace its core values by becoming the party of compromise as its new core value.

While compromise is often laudable, we've really lost something that made me want to become a Democrat back in the 60's.

There are strong Progessive voices still out there, but the television media is really trying to marginalize those voices. And not only FOX, but CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS. These networks have seriously tilted towards the right in my opinion.

For example if the John Birch society or Joe Pyne in the 60's had created a rally at the Lincoln Memorial I seriously doubt it would have captured the press that the Beck one did.

As Dylan said, "the times they are a changing". I just think they're changing in a significant move towards the right and I don't like it.

Little did I think that Obama's pledge of "Yes, we can." would create such a sense of idealism and hope in Americans that when he compromised many of those "ideals" away that a lot of us had, it would make the fall and sense of dissapointment that much more depressing.

[CrispyQ]

288. "...must compromise over and over again."

This was John Kerry's comment regarding the climate bill:

"We believe we have compromised significantly, and we're prepared to compromise further."

It could just as easily have been stated regarding the health insurance bill & the bankers bill.

It is the battle cry of our party.

[bobburgster]

294. Can't argue with you...

the dem. party does need to grow some balls.

[Raineyb]

359. Why would they? Apparently no matter how much they cave to Republicans we are expected to vote

for them or have the scary Republicans take power. Meanwhile, they're putting into place policies that Republicans want, so what's the difference?

[bobburgster]

286. Can't see the future...

and at some point I may throw my hands up in utter disgust too. I try to look at what is going on from an optimistic view point. take health care....I'm not overly happy with it, but I look at it as the beginning of something we are in dire need of, not the end result, which would suck.
I just can not in all good conscience abandon the democratic party because I'm not happy. I will continue to fight for what I believe within the party. There is no alternative.

[FiveGoodMen]

232. The Dem party is what it is because of those who will always defend it, no matter what

There are consequences, indeed.

[liberation]

275. Maybe you should apply your advice and think about what you are saying yourself...

... when your main electoral value proposition amounts to basically blackmail/extortion, you should take a few minutes to reflect where you guys went wrong.

[bobburgster]

292. Believe me, I have.

I do understand that for many democrats it certainly does amount to blackmail/extortion. Throwing ones strong, heartfelt beliefs, of what the democrat party should represent, out the window for "the lesser of two evils" must be a gut-wrenching proposition.

I guess I would say Howard Dean is a good example of someone I admire, and he is a good example of one who will not quit fighting for what he believes the democratic party represents. He has been treated unfairly, to say the least, but continues to speak out and fight within the party.

I do understand your frustration.

[ShamelessHussy]

31. The 'Third Way' (neoliberalism) has been going on since Clinton

though, it's consequence are only just now being felt, and thus harder to hide behind the rhetoric designed to keep us pliant.

[xocet]

32. K&R n/t

[maryf]

36. K&Rnt

[Jakes Progress]

38. Recommend. Truth hurts, but it's the truth nevertheless.

[raouldukelives]

39. K&R

The awful truth.

[madrchsod]

40. rockefeller republicans .........

what would paul simon,paul wellstone,hubert humphrey ,lbj, fdr,and other great liberal democrats think of what our party has become....

[Art_from_Ark]

87. Well, Humphrey, LBJ and FDR certainly wouldn't recognize it

And I would really like to see FDR kicking the ass of every politician would even think of sacrificing Social Security on the altar of "fiscal responsibility", especially when so much money is being pissed away on wars and bankster bailouts.

[SteveM]

250. Hell, LBJ looks like a bomb-throwing Trotskyite compared with the DNC.

[BrklynLiberal]

283. Rockefeller, Keating, Javits and most of the other "moderate" repukes would not even be allowed in

that party today. I think Eisenhower would be too liberal for what we have today.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. You are so right. The NeoCons were Democrats---then Republicans. Now they are Democrats again.

Corporate America gives it money to the Democrats, then the Republicans then the Democrats again.

Public finance for elections would solve this problem. All corporate money out.

[newspeak]

210. and while corporate america (or should we say global corp)

from one party to the next--the media and certain politicians make sure they keep the plebes divided. Don't want no plebes thinking about a decent job, or labor rights or education or civil rights--yep, keep them ignorant, scared and divided. The spooky big government is out to get you--booga, booga. All we have to do is screw up, like Katrina to convince the plebes that small government is better, no bothersome education, libraries, funds to the needy (of course, you may one day be one) or anything that aids the people. Because government is bad--so does that mean "we the people are bad", because what I've stated before, we are the government-and somehow, they've convinced us that it was some foreign entity that is not to be trusted. Only the all powerful corporations can save you--overpriced, shitty service and no more of that pesky representation. Yes sirree, it's government is bad and for profit sociopathic corporations are good!

[russspeakeasy]

47. From another very pissed off Floridian.......

"Turn the page?"   No, kiss my ass.

[emilyg]

54. This Georgian agrees.

[JDPriestly]

48. We are watching our country turn fascist. That's what is happening.

[area51]

88. +1 n/t

[area51]

90. dup

[Enthusiast]

101. Right before our eyes.

That is exactly what is happening.

[fascisthunter]

295. yee-up

[Bluebear]

49. 'And if we question we are scorned and treated badly by the party leaders.'

Hell, let alone their ilk right here.

[L0oniX]

51. I fail to understand why Dems don't attack the repukes all the time and...

keep them in defense mode all the time. I just don't get it. Is it a fear of using their tactics against them and seemingly being hypocritical? If that tactic works on us then it will work against them too. Fuck reaching across the aisle ...they would never do that with us. We have a majority and it is still being wasted on crap for the wealthy and the MIC. What about John Smith here at the common everyday low level of living week to week? Call me an extreme lefty for actually caring about myself and others in my un wealthy position in life ...and in fear of losing my job every day. I want these congress people to have to live with the same fear for a change.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

129. Held up against Occam, one would have to conclude that they agree with them.

:think:

[FiveGoodMen]

237. I think it's because the Dems are just playing 'Good Cop' to the pukes 'Bad Cop'

They really do appear to be on the same side at the end of the day.

[HughMoran]

52. imagination run wild

unrec and hide :eyes:

[Richard Steele]

53. The "Culture War" is over, and 'We the People' LOST.

I think the Grand Experiment is over. I really do.

[grahamhgreen]

63. Do not mistake our current tactical losses with a strategic one

We are part of a battle that has gone on for centuries, and will continue for many more!

[MissDeeds]

55. Excellent post

K&R

[cascadiance]

56. And Ted Stevens was set free so "we could kill him" in a plane crash, while Don Siegelman...

was "kept safe" by trying to keep him in prison... I'm sure some wingnuts will try to explain "socialist" Obama's administration's actions that way...

I'm sure we'll hear some rationalization like that to excuse us letting Stevens off the hook but still trying to not support Siegelman's appeal.

[democracy1st]

57. Strong post Mad very strong post K & R

[unblock]

58. a long, long time ago, republicans were the liberals and democrats were the conservatives

it could happen again. as teh republican party has moved itself deep into the right-wing fringe, the democratic party has seized the center (and then some).

a classic economics game theory thought exercise is to imagine a beach (or any essentially straight line) which has enough demand for exactly two food purveyors, and people will always go to whichever is closer. where should they position themselves? well, if either one fails to occupy the center, the other one can seize the larger of the two remaining areas. i.e., they'll always be adjacent to each other, one servicing the left, the other serving the right. if there's area in between them, they both have an incentive to move closer, and if either is not in the center, the other can move to be adjacent on the long side, thereby leaving the competitor with less than half the beach.

the only stable arrangement is for them to be side by side in the exact middle.

it's similar with one-dimensional politics. think of all politics as left-right is a tad simplistic, or, it OUGHT to be a tad simplistic, but reality is rapidly becoming that simplistic. with the republicans moving so far from center, the democrats obviously decided to seize the long end of the beach by moving close to the republicans, thereby trying to serve the entire left end of the spectrum, the middle, and even some of the right. the republicans are left with only the loony fringe.


however, eventually, the left will become disaffected and look for alternatives. the loony right will become disenchanted with the reality of being a minority party. one possibility is that the left will start a third party and the republican party will fade away out, to be replaced with the green party or whatever on the left -- the democrats will then by the party of the right.

alternatively, the disaffected left might take over the machinery of the right if their numbers are large enough.

finally, the left and the loony right might somehow (never say never!) work out a strange compromise in order to unite. don't laugh, the racists were democrats once. in that scenario, the republican party would then be politically left but racist; the democrats would not be racists but would be politically conservative.


the bottom line is that the democrats shouldn't stray too far from the left, or else they might find themselves in la-la land.

[newtothegame]

59. "It is catching many of us off-guard"

Why exactly? There was nothing in Obama the candidate that said he was going to be progressive or make any radical changes in the way we live, work and play. In fact, Candidate Obama's record said pretty much nothing. Yet we all made these radical assumptions and I still haven't figured out why. We have NEVER trusted politicians to do what they say they're gonna do. Why, in 2008, did Americans decide that EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN HAS LIED, but THIS GUY is telling the truth? :shrug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

126. Most excellent!

:thumbsup:

[Lilith Velkor]

174. Don't you remember?

Anyone who questioned that image was branded a racist Hillary supporter and told to go vote Republican.

That's why I don't call myself "progressive" - it's a synonym for "chump." I am a socialist, thankyouverymuch.

[SteveM]

255. There is a difference with Obama we didn't pick up...

To paraphrase Tom Wolfe (no flaming liberal, to be sure), he voted for Reagan because the Democrats/liberals bared its throat too often.

Once a party like the Democratic Party makes a reputation of giving in, of weeding outs its people in accordance with GOP demands, of insulting what remains of its "base," then you start trailing the stink of weakness, the VERY THING the GOP has been saying about Democrats for the last 30 years on a 24-7-365 basis. And the American people will weary of ANY party with that culture.

[WillyT]

60. HUGE K & R !!!

:mad:

:kick:

[Mira]

61. Whole. Heartedly. Recommended

[mitchtv]

64. K&R for another fine post

Keep telling it

[ibegurpard]

65. Excellent summation of what is so fucking wrong with this party right now

k&r

[PFunk]

66. I saw this comming for years ever Clinton and his DLC bunch came into power.

When business class finally realized that the repugs have now become too toxic to use to hold on to future power in a increasively multi-racial/gender/sexual america due to past racist (and homophobic) baggage decided to transform the dems (who mostly do not have that baggage) into their new future power base. And started on a plan to do just that staring with Clinton and continuing (with a boost) with Obama.

However I think they didn't realize (or didn't count on) that party's liberal/progressive base not going along with the plan. And after doing various things to try to hide this/keep us in line have finally realized that many are now seeing thru this (as indicated by this diary). Some now have gone back to the repugs (i.e the tea bagger movement) but most are continuing on this plan. Now trying to use terror tactics (i.e. do you really want to repugs to win) Instead of actually giving progressives/liberals something solid to keep then on. Only it seems like this is not working judging from the various low poll numbers and hints of dems staying home on November along with many now becoming indies.

And now this happens.

So yes, if things do keep going the way they are we may see the dems returning to their civil war roots as a minor party. All because they forgot they saying "Remember and treat with respect who brought you to the dance" or something like that. And it's downfall will be their own damn fault because of it. Leaving all of us dem indies to wonder at it all.

[Mnpaul]

73. DLC bunch

Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Ken Salazar, Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Tom Carper, Mark Warner, Ron Kirk, Larry Summers, Christine Gregoire, Martin O'Malley, and Harold Ford, Jr.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

Look familiar?

More of the DLC bunch

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_the_dlc_does_it

Koch brothers - that name rings a bell

[mod mom]

269. Jackson Stephens (of BCCI fame) was the major financier to back Clinton

and his $ paid off for him :mad:

[Octafish]

344. Mrs. Pamela Harriman helped out during the '92 campaign.

Right around the time funds were running low, ca. Jennifer Flowers.

Mrs. Harriman's husband, Averell Harriman, helped lie America into war in Vietnam. He also, in the days before World War II, was a business partner with Prescott Bush, remembered today for helping finance Hitler.

Small world. Especially when it comes to money.

[DeSwiss]

67. K&R - Agreed.

- It is now the DLC-Democratic Party. I didn't join that one. If we can't have "ours" back, then we need to make a new one.

"The problem with the left is that it was seduced by the practical, and that is what killed it
as a moral force." ~ Chris Hedges, http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/live_chat_chris_hedges_on_global_warming_20100721">"How corporations destroyed American democracy"

[RandomThoughts]

77. Or maybe it is the perspective.

[DeSwiss]

192. You're right.

- If we'd had the correct perspective, we wouldn't have been in Vietnam flame-throwing at all. We would have been helping, teaching, healing.

[RandomThoughts]

260. That is also prespective.

Fire is passion in many ideas.

I don't think it means what you think it does.

I agree war is not good, but passions for better thoughts is better in my view, however passion can be for bad thoughts also.

[DeSwiss]

301. The photo you used was of a soldier....

...using a flame thrower in what appeared to be the jungles of Vietnam. The flame thrower, no matter how they might otherwise be made useful -- was not the product or invention of "good passions." It was designed to kill, maim and destroy.

When one is trying advance an idea of the fire to be found in good passions, it might be more helpful to utilize visualizations that are the product of good passions and not one showing how death and destruction is more efficiently delivered onto humanity.

[PADemD]

108. The Progressive Democratic Party has a nice ring to it.

[DeSwiss]

193. Let's trademark that one right now!

:)

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pa28]

69. Agreed.

At the time I was really new and maybe too naive to really see where his policies were leading but looking back now I can't deny we took a wrong turn.

If you read our current party platform it sounds good and all the right words are there but in practice our governing style has been an exercise in parsing and denying the spirit and intent of the mission.

We really need a history lesson on what the party has represented in the past, what it's created and what it's prevented.

[Lasher]

86. The transition actually began when Saint Ronnie was elected.

Carter lost to Reagan due to the hostages in Iran and the Arab oil embargo. But our party leaders foolishly overreacted, thinking it was a sign the Democratic party brand needed a drastic shift to the right. Enter the neoliberal Democrats. Goodbye, party of working people. Hello, Republican lite.

You are correct to say that redefinition happened with Clinton, since he was our first neoliberal Democratic president. But it has been an evolution that began three decades ago, and continues to this day.

[Recursion]

124. Since 1965 union membership % has fallen by about 1 point every 2 years

The acceleration during Reagan's first 2 years was slight at best.

Blaming the systemic change in the economy due to the same exact imperial overreach that has affected every other superpower in history on Reagan doesn't work for me. Both the right and the left have had shortsighted responses to the problem that we haven't been able to afford our standard of living for about 50 years.

[Lasher]

289. Well I know it's true I can be shortsighted.

But I was thinking this discussion was about cause and effect. You challenged my argument, making a reasonable appeal to the principle of similar circumstances (which I don't agree with) and then went on to declare your opinion of the effect (we can't afford our standard of living) without bothering to opine about a cause.

Help me out of my shortsighted fog. If we haven't been able to afford our standard of living for the past 50 years, what has been the cause of that?

[readmoreoften]

71. Me too. It left me. It now really doesn't have much of a platform.

I heard a local radio show last night with young republicans and I had to listen in that "ew smell this its gross" way. They were talking about how they and other young Republicans were sick of being the party of homophobia and racism and that the next generation of Republicans was destined to become more inclusive on social issues.

I thought, well shit, that'd basically put them to the left of many Democrats. And since the Democrats aren't even centrist on economic issues anymore, I suspect the parties of the future will be nothing but personality contests without substance.

[Hamlette]

75. yes, so let's just let the tea partiers take over the country. That will make it better.

[Diane R]

78. +1000.

[Ignis]

178. ...Because those are the only two options.

:eyes:

[SteveM]

256. Well, they are the ones in the street...

Frankly, we had better keep our counsel with regards the Tea people. They may actually see what the GOP is all about; don't give 'em any more chance to hate us by insulting them; we may be talking with them.

[ooglymoogly]

79. Unfortunately, that redefinition seems to be taking place only here on DU

and most other progressive blogs.

Add that to the fact that Seniors and those within 5 or 10 years of becoming seniors covered by SS are now infuriated, some petrified, by Dino's throwing the immense surplussed of their hard earned SS into the mix to pay down the National Debt shortchanging them in the process.

These things most seniors will not understand; That these criminal excesses are from a past right wing administration; Who have stolen their savings, their IRA's and all moneys not nailed down including the SS Trust fund; Because that theft is now sanctioned by a deaf dumb and blind DLC, as it continues recruiting right wing Pugs to run as democrats. Making it a sure bet Democrats will lose in the fall and never have a clue just why that happened; As they did not, in the Ma. loss to brown for the same obvious reasons.

Folks over 50, represent a huge percentage of the voting population and can easily make or break an election for Democrats. Folks that will be the most affected by the mushrooming rumors of raising the retirement age or other unnamed cuts, to bring down the National debt, a large part of which is SS; Because the government has already stolen it for welfare for the rich.

Even now the dinos cannot figure out why polls are showing deep falls in democratic support while unspecified cuts in SS rumors fly; Effecting the lives of millions who's lives depend on SS.

A blind eye that is nothing less than criminal; As it is we who are and will be the losers of this careless cat and mouse game of bluff the seniors and left wing progressives.

"Gee" the DLC says, I just cant figure out why our popularity has fallen off the charts; It has to be those left wing progressive crybabies.

[The Doctor.]

80. the nation itself is going entirely insane.

K+R

[leveymg]

82. This has happened several times: 1948 "Loyalty Oaths", 1965 Vietnam, 1994 Triangulation, and now

There's always been a Right-wing within the Democratic Party. They're usually the ones who get America into new wars and gut existing social welfare programs. They're nasty SOBs who talk a nice, fuzzy "inclusive" liberal game, but are really cold, calculating corporate bastards.

They run the top echelons of the country's corporations, banks, law firms, universities, and the Democratic Party - they are The Establishment - what C. Wright Mills termed, "The Power Elite".

[H2O Man]

89. Recommended.

Well said.

[BzaDem]

91. With respect, much of this "redefinition" is easily explained, and some is not totally accurate.

The first part of your post is talking about how we didn't prosecute the Bush administration. Well, Obama made it clear that he was not going to do so, yet he was elected anyway (and got virtually all of the Democratic vote). And before that, Pelosi took impeachment off the table (before the 2006 elections). So this is not a re-definition. In fact, going and prosecuting the previous administration would be a re-definition. (And obviously, assuming we do not prosecute, the fact that they have "profitable associations" is nothing to be surprised about -- all former administration officials have "profitable associations").

Van Jones was out because he signed a truther petition. Truthers should not work in a Democratic administration.

You know what happened with Sherrod. That was a mistake, and there have been more apologies for that than Bush ever made for anything in 8 years.

Woman's rights have not been marginalized at all relative to the past. The executive order went no further than the Hyde amendment, which has been law for decades. To the extent that the executive order applied the Hyde amendment, it did not do so to "pacify the religious right." It did so to pass healthcare reform. Without the executive order to do nothing more than apply current law, the greatest social welfare bill since Medicare would not have passed.

Alan Simpson remains on the fiscal commission because it is a bipartisan commission, and the leadership of one party cannot "fire" the leadership of the other party. The commission has absolutely no power. Any recommendations they make need to win the vote of a majority of the House and 60 votes in the Senate, and have to be signed by the President. The commission is just a way to get people from both parties talking. If recommendations pass that we don't like, that is the fault of the people that VOTE for the recommendations in Congress, and the President for signing them into law. The commissioners have no more power to make recommendations than you or I.

Last time I checked, Obama was not responsible for which teachers were fired or the way they were fired.

The only reason people from the left of the administration might be disparaged is if they make baseless criticisms. For example, people who say HCR should not have passed from the left (for the most part) are making baseless criticisms. These criticisms are being disparaged, and they should be disparaged. Most people who make criticism of this form simply have their facts wrong and do not accurately reflect what is in the bill.

Another form of criticism that is frequently disparaged is criticism blaming the administration for not having 60 progressive votes in the Senate. In this case, blame should be directed at the 60th vote in the Senate (currently Olympia Snowe), or the electorate that put them there. Criticism aimed at the wrong place should be disparaged, since blaming the wrong people hurts accountability, misleads people, and prevents progress.

This is not to say that there isn't legitimate criticism about the administration. The administration clearly has significant power over foreign affairs, and its execution of that power is clearly center-left instead of left on some issues. To the extent that people want a more left-leaning foreign policy, this is completely legitimate criticism, and it should be directed directly at the White House. However, I rarely (if ever) see criticism of Obama's foreign policy "disparaged" by the administration. The only criticism I see "disparaged" is criticism that for the above reasons isn't really valid or is directed at the wrong people.

"The right wing extremists are not called out like we on the "left" are."

That is just false. Obama calls out right wing extremists all the time, and lately it has been practically every day.

"As Octafish said..we are in the middle of seeing our party redefine what it means to be a Democrat."

For all of the above reasons, I do not believe it is being redefined at all. Much of the "redefinition" is easily explained (as above). Most of the remaining difference is simply the difference between being an opposition party (where one can take most positions without consequence) and a governing party (where compromises are always made and have always been made since the beginning of time). We have only been a governing party (holding the White House, House, and Senate) for 4 years of the last 30 years, so the transition from opposition to governing can sometimes be jarring. But this does not mean Obama is doing something wrong -- it is just a problem with peoples' expectations of what a governing party can get done in this country (especially with fewer than 60 votes in the Senate who agree with the agenda).

This isn't just limited to Democrats; the Republican base was similarly angry at Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Bush II in particular failed on Social Security privatization, ANWR drilling, and immigration reform, despite holding the Presidency, the House, and 55 votes in the Senate. This country has a unique political system (supermajority Senate requirement to end debate since 1806, potential for divided government since 1791, etc.) where change from the status quo is very difficult and much of a party's wanted change simply never happens.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

97. He CLEARLY said that he was going to look forward, not backward.

Anyone with half a brain (looking at it objectively) knew EXACTLY what this meant.

All of this "investigation" stuff is completely besides the point. Obama (and others) knew EXACTLY what Bush did. The question was whether to prosecute or not prosecute. Sure, an official investigation would occur if Obama thought what Bush did deserved prosecution. But much what Bush did was clear as day to everyone, so Obama did not need any investigation to make the determination for whether to start the process. The pertinent question was clearly whether to start the process that could lead to prosecution.

And the answer to that question was clearly NO (in the campaign, by saying he was going to look forward instead of backwards over and over and over). Anyone who thinks Obama said or meant anything else is seeing what they want to see, and taking great liberties with what Obama said and clearly meant.

[Enthusiast]

104. Obama voters didn't know

that "looking forward" meant ignoring the rule of law. Because Obama clearly stated he was all for enforcing the law. And we didn't know it would mean leaving the Bush DOJ intact and in charge. Especially in light of Bush team abuses. So spare me your 'we should have known all along' bullshit talking points. Why do you think so many of us are so pissed off? Maybe we just didn't get our pony.

[BzaDem]

109. If you didn't know that "looking forward" meant that Obama was not going to prosecute

then that is a problem with your understanding of the English language, not with Obama. Obama made his intentions VERY clear. It's one thing to disagree with Obama, but it is another thing to pretend that Obama didn't make his intentions clear.

Of course Obama did not say he wasn't going to enforce the law. Obama simply has a different interpretation of the law than you do, and a different set of priorities for devoting finite resources to enforcement of different laws. TONS of alleged law violations are effectively "not enforced" due to resources not being devoted to them for investigation and prosecution (or conflicting interpretations of the law by people making these decisions). This happens in every state and the federal government every day.

Luckily for us, Obama made his priorities and interpretation very clear MULTIPLE times during the campaign. If Obama intended to prosecute, he would not have said that he is going to look forward as opposed to backwards in the context of prosecuting Bush et al. There would be NO REASON for him to say that if he intended to investigate and prosecute, as investigating and prosecuting are BY DEFINITION "looking backward." It is quite literally as simple as that.

[Enthusiast]

114. Wrong! Saying one will look forward

hardly constitutes ignoring violations of the law.

The Bush Administration tortured. Torture is the worst of crimes and puts the perpetrators right there with the Nazi Germans and the Imperial Japanese in WWII. Lying us into the Iraq War was no different than how the Nazis made up events as an excuse to invade Poland. Yet you say voters should have known Obama would ignore crimes of this magnitude? I'm not buying it! And this doesn't even get into Bush Administration illegal wiretapping.

I think you are one of the agents of misinformation.

[BzaDem]

115. You should have known it because he SAID it!

Obama obviously does not agree with you about the magnitude of the crimes or whether or not they were even crimes. He OBVIOUSLY doesn't believe that Bush lied us into war. So of course he is not going to order an investigation of a "crime" that he doesn't even believe occurred.

He then VOTED for FISA in the Senate, which made much of the type wiretapping conducted under Bush unambiguously legal, MONTHS before the election.

Agent of misinformation? You should take a look in the mirror.

[Enthusiast]

130. Everyone, including President Obama,

believes W Bush lied us into the Iraq War.

Even Laura Fucking Bush knows W Bush lied us into the Iraq War. The entire earth knows full well that W Bush lied us into the war. No one could actually believe otherwise. They might play along with the official story but we all know that Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Condi are war criminals not all that much different than their Nazi forerunners. And Obama knows it.

[BzaDem]

276. You have no evidence that Obama believes it. In fact, Obama made it clear that he DOESN'T believe it

in the oval office speech earlier this week.

[Enthusiast]

348. He was lying......again.

He knows it, the world knows it. Bush lied us into the Iraq War to enrich his cronies. Don't deny it. Obama is too intelligent not to know and believe it. EVERYONE knows it.

[kctim]

364. Everyone?

Didn't Pelosi go on national TV and say there was no evidence? Perhaps you could send the evidence EVERYONE but her has and get the ball rolling?
And while your at it, how about some evidence that PRESIDENT Obama is lying.....again?

[Enthusiast]

369. I don't need no stinkin' evidence.

And Pelosi was just repeating the "official story". That doesn't mean she actually believes it. Bush lied us into war to enrich his evil cronies. We all know it.

[kctim]

370. Um, wow

I uh, own the largest castle in the world, worth millions, and will sell it to you for ten grand. Just send me the money and I will send you the deed.


:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

371. Oh, I'm so intimidated because you

are laughing at me.

You heard what I said.

[olegramps]

158. The neo-con PNAC was determined to invade Iraq.

Richard Clarke made it perfectly clear that they seized 9/11 as their "Pearl Harbor" excuse to take us to war. Obama's decision to not prosecute these bastards is despicable. He has proven to be such a wimp that the Republicans are so embolden that they going to attempt to drive him out of office by impeaching him.

[Dr.Phool]

123. Then Obama is violating his constitutional oath.

I don't give a damn what he said , hinted at or didn't. He has a responsibility, and is sworn to UPHOLD THE LAW! Nothing else means jack shit.

Doing otherwise is criminal and impeachable.

[FiveGoodMen]

242. Absolutely!

:fistbump:

[BzaDem]

277. I'm simply saying that regardless of whether one thinks he is violating his oath

him doing exactly what he said in the campaign is not a "re-definition," especially given Pelosi's taking impeachment off the table. Actually prosecuting would be a re-definition.

[H2O Man]

125. "Looking forward"

can (and should) mean re-instating the rule of constitutional law. Before he was president, Barack Obama taught constitutional law.

Perhaps some people were "looking forward" to ignoring constitutional law, if we take some DUers at their word.

[BzaDem]

278. The context and implication of Obama's comments were perfectly clear, whether or not you agree with

them.

[H2O Man]

304. Thank you.

I'm so glad that you are here to explain these things to me and others.

[Jakes Progress]

202. What bullshit.

I've got more than half a brain. I understand the term looking forward. It meant to focus on a better future. It does not mean ignoring the past. It does not mean repeating the past.

Your whole post is revisionist bullshit. But hey. Your team won. The significance of your party lost, but your team won. Rah.

[BzaDem]

280. That is hillarious. There were TONS of people at the time on DU who knew EXACTLY what Obama meant

and were very vocal about their disagreement. The idea that Obama DIDN'T imply he wouldn't prosecute -- that is truly revisionist bullshit.

[ThomCat]

303. Yes, we all knew that it meant he wanted to do exactly what

Bush was doing, so he couldn't prosecute Bush, or else he'd be prosecuted too.

That's all it meant.

[Jakes Progress]

313. Obama said he wouldn't prosecute.

That was when he said he wouldn't prosecute. Saying that he would look forward wasn't the same as saying he wouldn't prosecute. I knew he wouldn't because he said he would not prosecute. The bullshit is in taking the phrase Looking Forward and turning it into code. There wasn't any code. He flat out threw prosecution off the table.

Arguing semantics isn't the point. It might be a nice way to avoid the issue, but the issue is his decision to let bushco ride off into the money sunset. Then the question is whether you agree that bush and company should not be held accountable. Do you agree with Obama that the bush and cheney crimes should be ignored and forgotten? Do you?

[tomp]

321. we don't have to argue semantics. he said he would investigate.

in the case of bush, inc, if you investigate you prosecute because there is so much illegal stuff there
that you couldn't not find it. the only way to not find it is to not look.

he didn't look. obama lied. period.

PS: i don't remember him saying outright that he would not prosecute, but i do not question that he
would say both things at different times.

[tomp]

318. he clearly also said he was going to investigate.

i don't have time or energy to google it for you but it's true and you're wrong.

did you even consider that he said both things because he's a fucking politician and they do that all the time?

did it occur to you that one could "look forward" AND investigate? did it ever occur to you that the absolute very best thing to do FOR THE FUTURE would be to publicly investigate (and of course prosecute because bush, inc crimes are legion and flagrant)? no, because you're a fucking obamaphiliac and you'd rather be fellating the hyperchessmaster-in-chief.

you fucking obamaphiiliacs kill me. when we say we don't like his foreign policy you say, he's doing what he said he would do.

but when we point out that he says he's going to investigate and doesn't, you say it's beside the point and we should read between the lines.

you'd be laughable if you weren't so dangerous.

[Octafish]

161. ''Truthers should not work in a Democratic administration...''

Right. We should believe George W Bush and Richard B Cheney. They always tell the truth, especially when together.

Not under oath, though.

[EFerrari]

201. Not to mention, Jones never signed that petition.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/26/83315/8588

[Octafish]

216. Someone on the Reich said he did, and that's good enough for too many.

What Ian Fleming wrote in "Goldfinger":

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

[BzaDem]

282. Your grasp of logic is not great.

Believing Bush and Cheney did not intentionally cause 9/11 or let it happen is NOT the same as believing anything they say.

After all, if they claimed that the Earth was round, would you then claim they were lying, and that the Earth is actually flat (solely because they said it)? Didn't think so.

[Octafish]

343. My grasp of logic seems better than yours. I know enough to say Bush and Cheney are crooks.

You point out that even though they are liars doesn't mean they always lie. It's as if lying America into two illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous wars were something that could have happened to anybody.

I'll err on the side of caution and I won't give Bush and Cheney and the rest of their connected crooks the benefit of the doubt, from Wall Street to warmongering. For their inaction before 9-11 alone they need to be investigated.

Why you find that faulty logic, I have no idea. Must be some kind of sophisticated multidimensional smear campaign, calling people who disagree with Bush and Cheney, "Truther."

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Diane R]

229. I agree with you.

[FiveGoodMen]

244. And a hearty Fuck Off And Die to you, traitor!

[Diane R]

228. Thanks BzaDem. I can't believe how the anti-Obama forces spin everything to discredit him.

[grantcart]

247. Very thoughtful response

Every party goes through a redefinition process when it transitions from being a party on the sidelines where everything is possible and policies are easily formulated and no votes need actually be made to a governing party where all of the contradictory interests of the Republic have to be addressed and herded in a legislative process that gives extraordinary powers to the minority and requires a super super majority to pass anything.

As you point out Bush didn't get very much passed outside of the 'no child' and the emotionally laden legislation that was 9/11 related.

Getting things actually passed means that you have to redifine utopian (literally 'no place') solutions to solutions that can pass. That in addition to going forward you actually had to go back and fix a system that was disintegrating made policy objectives even more difficult to achieve. Most Democrats, in fact 80% of the people who label themselves Democrats understand that reality and do not maintain a permanent state of hyperangst because of it. The idea that a single election would bring such a panacea is without parallel. FDR had 4 general election campaigns and yet he becomes the standard by which a 2 year Presidency is judged.

[tomp]

95. "The illusion of freedom will continue....

.....as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." — Frank Zappa

the democratic party has always been part of the scenery. bones, crumbs, excuses.

[jannyk]

102. Kick & Rec!

[Uben]

103. The definition of "democrat" is subjective....

We have always had democrats that differ, and we always will. Just because progressives didn't get everything they want doesn't mean they are "required" to accept anything. Sure, we all have to follow legislation passed by congress, but we have always had to, this is nothing new. Right now, democrats have the majorities in congress and the whitehouse. Any legislation passed will be a mixture of all factions of the party with input from republicans. The only thing new about that is the fact that WE have the majority.

I swear, some people just have to bitch! Yeah, there's gonna be things we don't like, tough shit. MAn up!

[Enthusiast]

105. 100% agreement.

I have never felt less optimistic about the future of our nation than I do now. During the peak of Bush abuses we could at least imagine the prospects of replacing the worst of the Reich Wing Republicans with Democrats so a new day would dawn. We achieved that goal! But reality has set in. We didn't replace them at all, the corporatists are still in charge.

[pecwae]

110. Recced.

Between this and Octafish's this is some of the most thought provoking reading posted here in some time. We, who don't wish to hand our votes over to those who shed their principles for political expediency, have some choices to make. After repeated gut punches those choices become easier.

[mdmc]

111. Being a dem has always been about checking the evil GOP

If we wanted to be right on the issues we would be greens.
if we wanted to win we would be gop.
we want to beat the gop..

[w4rma]

128. If we want to beat the GOP then purge the neo-liberal DLC. (nt)

[democrank]

112. I`ve been a voting Democrat since the early 1960`s

and about as loyal and active a foot soldier as there was. No more. The dumbing down of basic Democratic principles and the invalidating of the age-old Democratic conscience here and elsewhere has left me both stunned and saddened.

The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, as Howard Dean calls voters like me, is issues oriented. That`s why we can`t condone laying off firefighters while we "rescue" banksters. We don`t look the other way when we hear about torture nor do we praise George Bush for his immoral occupation of Iraq. We still stand with the unions and we still know that equality shouldn`t be based on sexual orientation. We care about the homeless and we care about the unemployed. The list is nearly endless but our compassion isn`t. That`s what separates us from the so-called moderates and rightwingers.... compassion and empathy.

The willingness of Democratic "leaders" to go along to get along has helped create this corporate culture, helped kill and maim thousands of people, help ruin our economy, helped subvert social and economic justice. As a country, we manufacture very little, we waste and abuse an awful lot and we`ve allowed the corruption of just about every arm of the government, from the people overseeing mines to the people overseeing prisons. It`s a regular cesspool which "moderates" apparently approve of. Count me out in that head-nodding habit. I`ve seen enough and even if Democratic "leaders" don`t want real change, I do.

[Stoic]

116. I worked for 7 years to take our party back...

from the Republican-lite bastards that set up shop under Bill Clinton. I guess they won and I lost. I'm just waiting for Obama to "rescue" Social Security by beginning to privatize it and I will no longer consider myself a Democrat. And I grew up in a Dem family and have been a registered Dem since I turned 18 in 1974. It's been part of my identity for my entire life and Obama and his cabal of Neoliberals will change all that.

[Fly by night]

117. As more evidence, here in TN our D goobernatorial candidate is a race-baiting, gays-hating, ...

... gun-fellating, clueless creationist cracker who, by virtue of heading up this year's crop of D candidates, gets to define who Democrats are here in the home of Andrew Jackson, Cordell Hull and the Gores.

That's why I am voting (for the first time) for Howard Switzer, the Green Party candidate for Governor. Howard doesn't stand a snow-cone's chance in hell of being elected, but then neither does Mike McWherter, aka "Big Daddy Junior" (the D candidate.)

I'd rather vote for a loser I can believe in than a DINO in a yellow dog's skin.

[pscot]

253. And Bill Clinton is coming

to campaign for him.

[deutsey]

118. The Progressive Century is dead

We're witnessing the emergence of a new rightwing/corporate century.

:evilfrown:

[newspeak]

206. it's the same-fascism

And fascists will use religion, wedge issues--anything to maintain control for corporate interest over the will of the people.

[Faryn Balyncd]

119. K&R .....Thanks.

:hi:



:kick:

[V_Byl]

120. I was raised with a right-wing nut job father...

...love him, but he's out there. When you're a kid you hear what he says and don't question it too much. Lots of crazy stuff from the John Birch Society, all the way to the Christian Identity Movement (big time racists). I remember him being excited when the Oklahoma Federal Building was bombed by Timothy Mcveigh. That was really the turning point for me when I realized how poisonous it was.

Anyway, I was very excited when the Dem's took congress and then Obama took the White House - and now all we get is repub-lite BS from the Democratic Party. What's worse is watching all these hate movements become main stream, and the main theme of the repuke party - it's like a nightmare to me.

[Swamp Rat]

122. k&r

[Hubert Flottz]

127. The NeoCON-artists need to be the neoConvicts.

Some reverse "Shock and Awe" sounds about right, for the PNAC pack/perps.

[LWolf]

131. .

I'll k&r without comment, since my thoughts about the party would get my post deleted.

[bread_and_roses]

132. K & R here (n/t)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

136. Democrats now oppose racial segregation...

There was no "lost Golden age" of the Democratic party. "Democratic principles" does not mean "liberal principles". Moving the Democratic party to the left - something I view as a worthy goal - is a matter of "taking over" the Democratic party, not "taking it back".

[OwnedByFerrets]

137. K and R

[bvar22]

139. K&R...and as an old FDR Democrat....

allow me to add this for Nostalgia.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*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.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---FDR

Ahhh. That sure brings back the memories.
Whatever happened to THAT Democratic Party? :shrug:


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[October]

144. Wish we had an FDR now. /nt

[October]

145. Wish we had an FDR now. /nt

[Larry Ogg]

330. A lot of people keep saying, "I wish we had an FDR..."

Well I'm convinced that there are a lot of honest people that could fill his shoes, and I'm convinced that there are way more honest and capable people in this country then there are corrupted and elected officials in our government. The problem is that the predator class, their cronies, and their corporately owned M$M is very successful at insuring their brand of venal politician gets elected to both parties, while insuring honest individuals don't, and rendering them ineffective when and if they do.

So my wish is that people would stop wishing corpses to rise from the dead, and start learning about how the predator class brain washes the masses into keeping them in power. If you want people like FDR in politics then learn about the traits of psychopaths and authoritarians, become psychologically enriched and well informed in your understanding of character, spread the word and people like FDR will once again be electable; keep wishing without learning and your heirs will be slaves.

[grantcart]

248. As you know nostalgia distorts memory.

So you are applying the results of 4 general election campaigns by FDR to the 2 year Presidency of Obama?


Yep very nostalgic.

[bvar22]

265. Perhaps nostalgia distorts memory., perhaps not.

There are also those who wish to revise history for partisan political purposes.
I'll take a '55Chevy Nomad, Union LABOR, Made in America, and FDR any day.

[grantcart]

337. just as long as you take the segregation, interning US citizens and

FDRs initial mishandling of the economy which made things much worse along with all of your cherry picked warm memories.


FDR is the country's most outstanding President but this cherry picking 12 years of accomplishments and looking at it with rose colored glasses is rather pedestrian.

[izzybeans]

140. Ummm. we witnessed that in the 90s. We are continuing that now.

Full steam.

Unfortunately.

[suffragette]

141. K&R

Excellent post.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

143. out of the ballpark once again, madfloridian.

:thumbsup:

[kctim]

146. So only 20% of Democrats

know what it means to be a Democrat?

As a moderate, it's not the other 80% of us, or our party leadership, who is trying to redefine what it means to be a Democrat. It is liberals themselves. They hinge an ENTIRE issue on their opinion and any outcome which does not fall in line with their opinion in its entirety is labeled as being right-wing. Believe in the 2nd Amendment? Then you are a right-winger with penis envy and live in fear. Don't want government mandated health care? Then you are a corporate owned right-wing whore. Understand you can't magically bring home the troops overnight? Then you are war mongering right-wing chickenhawk. Don't want abortion used as birth control? Then you hate women. Want welfare to be a step up, not a way of life? Then you are a rich right-winger who hates the poor. See the President of the United States and not the black President of the United States? Then you are a racist. Don't believe GLBT rights are solely dependent on the WORD marriage? Then you are a right-wing fundie who hates gays.

The problem isn't that we moderates are trying to redefine what it means to be a Democrat. The problem is that we moderates do not blindly accept you're interpretation as the only correct interpretation of what it means to be a Democrat.

We dare to think for ourselves rather than simply fall in lockstep with you're definitions and it is US who are redefining the party?

[madfloridian]

147. Your post is EXACTLY what I meant. You just made my point.

Your quote:

"As a moderate, it's not the other 80% of us, or our party leadership, who is trying to redefine what it means to be a Democrat. It is liberals themselves. They hinge an ENTIRE issue on their opinion and any outcome which does not fall in line with their opinion in its entirety is labeled as being right-wing. Believe in the 2nd Amendment? Then you are a right-winger with penis envy and live in fear. Don't want government mandated health care? Then you are a corporate owned right-wing whore. Understand you can't magically bring home the troops overnight? Then you are war mongering right-wing chickenhawk. Don't want abortion used as birth control? Then you hate women. Want welfare to be a step up, not a way of life? Then you are a rich right-winger who hates the poor. See the President of the United States and not the black President of the United States? Then you are a racist. Don't believe GLBT rights are solely dependent on the WORD marriage? Then you are a right-wing fundie who hates gays."

Thanks so much for making my point so clearly.

That is exactly how the party leaders look at us. It is indeed.

[mwfolsom]

153. We are just doormats to these folks

madfloridan -

We need a symbol for how the Party Elites view us - I've been proposing a doormat for some time now. They step on our hopes and beliefs, wipe their feet on us whenever they want and generally view us as a dirty necessity to be ignored till they pound on us once again.

Yes, we are doormats and its time we figured out what to do next -

[kctim]

183. Ever asked yourself

WHY you believe that?

More than likely its because you falsely view your "hopes and beliefs" to be more important or valid than the "hopes and beliefs" of others.

[mwfolsom]

223. Oh I see how it works

I'm supposed to surrender my hopes and beliefs to please others -

You've got to be kidding right?

[kctim]

235. No

you are supposed to understand that forcing hopes and beliefs onto others who do not share them does not work. Because of this, we must create a party where everybody will follow in lockstep with our own personal beliefs, or we choose to be effective and work together.

Dem A favors govt provide for them.
Dem B favors individual choice.
Dems A&B work together and govt provides for those who need it, while also respecting the freedom of choice for everybody else.

Dem A respects the Constitutional right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
Dem B fears it.
Dems A&B work together to insure the right is protected while also passing common sense laws to calm the fears of Dem B.

All of nothing is not how the game is played.

[mwfolsom]

252. total nonsense -

Wanting Democrats to live up to my hopes and beliefs ain't forcing them on anybody. They make their choices and so do I.

You seem to think that there is some grand negotiations going on that force the Dem left and right to come up with a compromise and that's what happens. That's not reality. I see nothing really progressive in what Obama and Dems have done since they all came to power. What really happens is we say what we want, you say what you want and the Corporations get them in the backroom and tell them what to do. After that the Dem Politicians set about explaining to us why doing the Corporations biding is the best that they can do. Its all a farce - they don't care what you want nor do they care what I want - they serve their Corporate owners. Us arguing is just nonsense - the debate isn't between Progressive and Moderate Democrats - its between Corporate Democrats, the folks that run the Party, and the rest of us. Same thing is true for the Repubs. That's what so sad and comic about the Tea Baggers - they really don't understand they are being manipulated for the benefit of the same Corporations that own both the Republican and Democratic Parties. If they get the Repubs in power they will do what the Dems do - run the Gov for the interest of the Corporations.

[kctim]

262. We all make our own choices

but respecting the choices of others is the biggest choice we can make. Using excuses of fear like 'evil govt' or 'evil corps' controlling everything and everybody is nothing more than dodging the debate.

[mwfolsom]

331. even if you believe its true?

[kctim]

350. There are thousands of people

playing in the woods because they believe it is true that the "evil govt" wants to control them and make them slaves.

Believing something is true is not always what really is true. Facts can be real boogers.

[mwfolsom]

355. Wat the F*&#k does this sentence mean?

"Believing something is true is not always what really is true. Facts can be real boogers."

This is idiocy - please go away

[kctim]

366. It means

things are not true just because you believe them to be true.

"Idiocy" is a little strong to use on those who cannot comprehend what is written, but if that is how you must end something when you have no facts, I will honor that decision.

[Raineyb]

357. Complete and utter bullshit

What we have is

Dem A favors having government work for the people
Dem B favors having government work for the corporations

Dem B accuses Dem A of wanting a pony and then works with Republicans to make sure nothing Dem A wants is in the bill then tries to sell it as though it's the best thing they can get when they never tried for anything better in the first place.

And then shills start talking about how "sensible" this "compromise" is without acknowledging that it's not compromise if only one side gets what they want.

[kctim]

367. Two problems with that theory

You wrongly believe it is YOU who decides what a government must do in order to be considered as working for the people.
AND
You wrongly believe everybody who does not agree with YOU, is for the 'corporations.'

[Raineyb]

374. Gee what a surprise, Exactly what I'd expect from someone who's got plastic

cheering devices roaring in their ears.

If you think that both sides are getting what they want then either you don't know what the word compromise means, in which case it's a waste of time talking to someone so insipid, or you know but are spinning, in which case it's a waste of time bothering with you because there's no conversation with the cheer squad.

Either way, based on what I've seen of your posts talking to you is a waste of time.

Let me know when you've crawled out of the rectum of the DLC or at least when you've stop spewing their idiotic talking points.

[Diane R]

231. +1 for Kctim

[EFerrari]

251. Straw man. The poster did not claim to hold more important hopes and beliefs.

Good grief.

[mwfolsom]

151. Well its time for the other 80% to pick up the slack -

So you are a moderate Dem - not sure what that means besides the fact that you don't seem to like the idea of gay marriage or a women's right to control her own body. So be it but I have a few questions for you - do you donate your free time to the party? How much work did you do for the Obama Campaign? Are you a precinct or ward chair? How many doors have you knocked on or how many calls have you made for the Party? From my experience its folks like me that do that work so its time for you and your "moderate" friends to step-up and do that work.

Looks like you views match nicely those who run the Dem Party so enjoy but don't expect me and folks like me to be around to do the Party's grunt work. Hope you can pick up the slack and get enough Independents to replace the votes of the Libs and Progressives that can't be bothered to vote for the Corporate Dems anymore.

[kctim]

166. First, thank you for not copping out

and giving the standard excuse of 'you prove my point.'

Yes, just like 80% of Democrats, I am a moderate.
How can it be a FACT that I don't like the idea of gay marriage or abortion when I didn't state where I stand of those issues? I simply repeated the standard rhetoric that is screamed when people dare mention such things. I happen to personally believe ANY adult should be allowed to marry ANY adult they wish and am very pro abortion, to an extreme even. I just don't believe a person such as President Obama should be labeled a homophobe or bigot because of his personal beliefs of marriage or that a person who supports a womans right to choose an abortion should be labeled anti womens rights because they don't support it as a form of birth control, only up to a certain time or don't want to pay for it.

As for your questions:
Yes, I donate my time to the party to get moderates elected.
I went door to door, handed out info and spoke in support of candidate Obama to become President Obama. I am not a "chair" type of person, but more of a one on one type.
So, it looks like we both did our work, but seems like one of us did it for what they wanted and expected and approve, while the other did it for something that was not and do not approve.

My views actually match nicely with 80% of Democrats, not just those who "run" the party. What you call Corporate Dems are actually Dems who are elected over and over again by the people they represent, so it seems those people are happy being represented in a moderate way. IF they wanted liberal policy, they would elect a liberal to represent them.
Perhaps you wouldn't be so upset if you would acknowledge that fact. Maybe even see how silly it is to sit out an election simply because others don't think or believe as you.

[Ignis]

180. "Yes, just like 80% of Democrats, I am a moderate."

Would you please support this claim? Thanks.

[kctim]

188. There was a poll that showed

somewhere around that number of Democrats identified themselves as such and that around 20% identified themselves as liberal. At work but will see if I can find it.

Personal experience has also led me to that conclusion.

[Ignis]

196. You don't think your location might possibly influence your beliefs?

I live in the San Francisco area, and of the roughly 200 people I know who are Democrats, maybe 5-10 are centrists/moderates.

So we could sit here all day exchanging anecdotes, but some real data would help.

[kctim]

224. Of course it does

and I fully acknowledge the difference between my personal experience and a sampling of a broader scope.
The poll just validates one side over the other.

Good to see that you acknowledge the role 'location' plays. Most liberals intentionally ignore that little fact in order to convince themselves that everybody thinks as they do.

[Ignis]

236. "Most liberals intentionally ignore that little fact"

Again, I'd like to see some support for this broad-brush assertion. Thanks.

[Ignis]

365. Kicking for the evidence again. Hopefully a day was long enough.

:shrug:

[Ignis]

372. One last kick for evidence for these two claims.

They're such broad, sweeping claims that I can't imagine it would be difficult to find the data.

:shrug:

[mwfolsom]

227. Good - because they are going to need your help

It seems that us doormats that make up 20% of the party should shut up and do as we are told -

You can forget that - better start getting the Independents on your side because you are going to need them. My plan is to vote for those few Democrats that I like and just not bother to vote for the other offices. Time for the Moderate Dems to learn how to live without us -

I wonder how many cycles it will take of the Democrats loosing on a monumental scale for the moderate dems, what ever that is, to realize using us libbes as a doormat might not be such a great plan.

[kctim]

264. Nobody wants you to 'shut up'

you should always fight for what you believe. All I want is for you to realize that moderate Democrats like myself also fight for what we believe in, and to stop trying to silence us by labeling us as corporate Dems or Republicans everytime we win a fight.

Could you explain exactly how moderate Democrats use liberals as doormats?

[mwfolsom]

333. its called the lesser of two evils game -

You come to us on a routine basis, show us a few crumbs that you know we want, suggest we might get them then warn us about the evil republicans and what nasty things they will do if they get elected. After you get our vote you then go off and forget we exist till you need our vote again.

Been there, done that bye -

[kctim]

351. But you can't explain how we do that?

What crumbs have you been shown and it was suggested you might get them?

[Diane R]

233. Another +1 for Kctim

[fascisthunter]

300. wow... somebody has to support him

jayzus

[kctim]

352. +1 to show support

is better than ignoring facts and using emotional opinions to show no support.

[Ignis]

373. Hey, since you agree with that poster, can you do his homework?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9059492#9062664

He can't seem to support any of these sweeping claims he's made. Care to lend a hand?

[keepCAblue]

160. "As a moderate..." Sounds classically conservative to me. What is moderate about...

...any of the positions you just regurgitated? Everything you stated fits perfectly in line with the Republican platform and echoes exactly the beliefs which moderate REPUBLICANS use in describing themselves. Honestly, I think many of the 80% which, like yourself, define themselves as "moderate" are simply Republicans who have slapped a "Democratic Party" label on their foreheads simply to distance themselves from the religious extremists and tea baggers who have risen within the Republican Party over the past decade. Sure, compared to Christo-fascists and tea baggers, you are most certainly correct in identifying as a "moderate" but a moderate REPUBLICAN. Just because you change your voter registration to say "Democrat", it doesn't make you one.

[riderinthestorm]

170. I agree. That poster is a classic republican. Wonder how they feel about tax cuts?

That's another "big" Rethug issue and I'm guessing they want the Bush tax cuts to be extended.....

[kctim]

177. Then you should have no problem

with going through the Democratic Party platform and showing us where we are wrong.
No Democrat worth a damn is going to agree with every single position the platform states, but you should be able to point something out on most of them.

[earcandle]

148. Thank you!

[kentuck]

150. I think that is happening here on DU also...

Although some have not yet grasped that reality.

[keepCAblue]

154. There is no Democratic Party anymore. There's Republican and Republican Lite.

Thanks to the DLC, all the Blue Dog "Dems" and DINOs.

[kentuck]

156. You mean big taxcuts and less tax cuts?

We are so creative.

[Octafish]

167. Well, there is the Bailout Division.

Big Bailouts of the Rich.

Really Big Bailouts of the Rich.

[swilton]

155. Should Not be Present Tense

This all started under the Clinton Administration vis a vis the wars in the Balkans, media consolidation and welfare 'reform' to name just a few - he was bought and paid for by the DLC...

Then it continued with the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida and acceptance of the fraudulent election of George W. Bush and his administration's many crimes - some of them crimes against humanity - nary a whimper from the so-called Democrats.

As far as I'm concerned this is past-perfect tense - 'We just witnessed the redefining of what it means to be a Democrat'....and this is the Frankenstein that it has wrought.

[olegramps]

164. The solution is simple. Form a Labor Party the actually represents the working class.

When the workers have been driven to the point of desperation, they will finally wakeup to the fact that they have been deserted by today's Democratic Party. I have posted the 1956 Republican Platform on this board and I would suggest that if you want to see just how far the Democrats have strayed go read it. It is far more liberal then the milquetoast crap that is coming out of this administration.

[RKP5637]

173. +1, n/t

[cjbgreen]

165. Add fear from the media!

We are being told by the media, progressive media, that if we do not vote and silence ourselves, we will be responsible for putting extremists and buffoons in charge of the House and Senate. We are told that we are overlooking Obama's accomplishments. Even though war crimes have been over-looked, the public option was traded away despite enormous public support, public schools are being sold off to the highest bidder, Afghanistan is escalating and so is the cost, and now we are told that the richest Americans will continue to receive the Bush tax cut, not to mention off shore drilling. I have this debate with friends regarding choice and actions we can take. I know I did not want more of Clinton, and yes I thought Obama was more progressive before he selected his cabinet and advisers. I do think we were mislead. And I think we should not be silent. The Democrats need to know from all of us that staying on this path will not keep them in office. More of the same is wrong, seriously and using fear should not work.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uncle Joe]

172. Well there is one negative aspect of playing defensive chess, ultimately all pieces on the board

must be sacrificed to save the king and then you usually end up losing anyway.

Perhaps the Democratic Party has come to value holding the White House to such an extent, that they believe sacrificing one or both houses of Congress in 2010 will improve the chances of retaining the Presidency in 2012?

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[NJmaverick]

175. Complete and utter nonsense

The party is as it always was.

[Subdivisions]

200. Un-rec. n/t

[Dr.Phool]

212. Comedy night came early I see.

I've been a Democrat since I cast my first vote for McGovern in 1972. We had some real leaders like Hubert Humphrey, who would stand on ideals for the downtrodden and working folks.

This ain't the party I supported for years.

[NJmaverick]

219. Time does make the heart grow fonder I see

I think you should keep your day job BTW. Funny, but not side splittingly so

[Subdivisions]

222. Un-rec. n/t

[NJmaverick]

220. Time does make the heart grow fonder I see

I think you should keep your day job BTW. Funny, but not side splittingly so

[Dr.Phool]

230. Now you're stuttering.

And besides, I retired a while back. Very young.

[NJmaverick]

249. More wishful thinking on your part. I am old enough to remember the 70s

and the failure of the people you spoke of, being able to win the Presidency. I also know they were not the controlling say in the party, anymore than Grayson is today.

[Ignis]

239. You can't convince kids these days that anything existed before Reagan.

But you can't blame them: They've grown up in a world dominated by right-wing assholes and "Democratic" politicians who enable them.

[NJmaverick]

261. That's true, and explains why many wrongly think President Obama

has done a poor job, they are simply too young and lack the experience.

[Ignis]

302. I can't disagree with you, or my post will be deleted.

:hi:

[liberation]

309. I don't think you could have provided a more disingenuous reading of the previous post..

... if you tried. Must be second nature by now. LOL.

[Ignis]

312. It's part of the New Civility.

:patriot:

[onenote]

297. Humphrey was considered a disappointment by many progressives in the late 60s

Many progressives viewed HHH as a stand in for LBJ and thus supported McCarthy, Kennedy, or McGovern instead

[Raineyb]

360. I wouldn't call it funny. Pathetic and sad but not funny. I can't claim to

have as long a voting record as you do but this party isn't even the same one I'd watched growing up in the 80's. To believe that the party is the same as it always was is to either engage in revisionist history or head up the ass stupidity. (Not that I'm accusing you of either to be clear) This party has been moving rapidly to the right ever since it decided that it needed to suck up to business in order to win elections.

You are absolutely right.

[JuniperLea]

257. I agree...

I think some people have been asleep at the switch.

[Cleobulus]

361. So the party is still pro-slavery and pro-segregationalist?

Damn I did not know that!

[Ignis]

176. Big K & R.

:patriot:

[robinlynne]

179. You are so very right!!!!!!!!! k&r 1000 times.

[Usrename]

184. I know there has been a recent attempt to adjust the rules here...

...but at some point shouldn't we try to address the basic principle behind being a member here, and how that basic principle is now in direct tension with itself?

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

The two requirements are at odds with each other.

[Raksha]

341. That basic principle contains an internal contradiction

that is becoming more intolerable by the day, and is precisely the subject of this thread. "Being generally supportive of progressive ideals" often means you CANNOT support Democratic candidates for political office. Not when the "Democratic candidate" is a DLC corporate sellout and a TRAITOR to said "progressive ideals."

Edited to add: I read your post too quickly before I replied. I see you already addressed the internal contradiction.

[KansDem]

185. "I think therefore I rec"

:dem:
Kickin' ass...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

191. Expect it to get worse --

as the Tea Parties/Nutter Wing make more inroads into the GOP and (relatively) sane GOPers make the move to the Dems. :( The Party will get pushed further and further to the right to appeal to the new membership. Also factor in even more RW Dem candidates picked by the likes of Rahm to win in certain districts -- "christian", anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-corporatation GOPer wolves in Dem clothing.

I said "uncle" after O opened up coastal areas to offshore drilling. That kind of "Democrat" is not for me, thank-you-very-much.

[cjbgreen]

203. Corporations

Corporations buying and running the presidency, Sumner and Geitner, Rahm Emmanuel, Arne Duncan, Ken Salazar and so it goes. We need to support progressive candidates and communicate with our representatives in the house and senate. Obama can still make important changes to his cabinet and he can provide the leadership we need. He can protect Social Security. The Democratic party can take this position.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

208. Sure Obama and the Democrats could --

but they won't. They have already told us so. We have been communicating with our Reps (including O) for two years now and have gotten exactly bupkis for the effort. Sold out over and over. Frankly I think this administration is a lost cause. We need to look to future progressive leaders and support them.

[Skittles]

207. required to support?

look how many DUers are willing to accept garbage from this administration - it is beyond sickening

[TriMera]

214. Big k&r.

You nailed it again, Madfloridian.

[Jefferson23]

217. Absolutely true imo. K&R for madfloridian and Octafish. n/t

[xchrom]

218. Recommend

[cjbgreen]

241. Polls

I think the Polls saying most democrats are moderates means nothing!! That is media ____ to convince the public that anything progressive is radical. The majority of Americans supported a public option. I assume that group considers themselves moderate. So lets not accept that moderates are not progressives and progressives are not moderates. I think moderation means that you don't torture. I think moderation means that you don't engage in preemptive war. I think moderation means that the top 2% don't receive the biggest tax break at the same time they outsource production to third world companies. I think it is moderate to expect that there is governmental oversight to protect people from environmental destruction. I think government exists to protect all people. rich and poor and to protect the constitution.

[erodriguez]

234. Truth! K&R

[Lucian]

240. Since that's the case, I wonder if the real progressives should start their own party?

Or if it's time to join the Green Party?

I have no problem with either.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

246. There are two types of people who should never tell Democrats what to think or how to vote.

The first group is anybody who voted for Reagan or anybody named Bush.

The second is anyone too young to actually remember the Reagan presidency.

It would seem the "new Democrats" are made up largely of these two groups.

[peacetalksforall]

254. Well, something is happening to me. This much I understand. When I hear the name

Rahm Emanuel I freeze up. When I hear words and the answers that come from DLC-Republican Democrats I freeze up. I freeze up to the point where I am finding it difficult to start or get through what these people say. And it is tragic for me because they are in charge everywhere. I am finding myself drop out.

If I feel this way, there are probably others.

If someone or all of us could write up a plan to help us stay Democrats which means to stay interested and involved in politics - of if someone has already done it, please let me know. Something organized so that I don't have to look at a million sites, because my political depression is happeneing at the same time that I have to work like crazy to have money for bills.

Another happening is that I read something by the Obama administration that sends me into a time warp. I start thinking, reacting, and writing as if Cheney was still in charge. I can't get Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Kissinger out of my mind. I start and then stop writing. My posts are way, way down. I don't want to say anything too terrible about the Obama administration so I don't say much at all.

[SteveM]

258. "Re-definition?" I don't even know WHAT the Democratic Party stands for. nt

[whistler162]

259. NTSA...just the same self flagellating garbage......

[colsohlibgal]

268. Absolutely

In most areas Eisenhower was well left politically of way too many democrats now in congress and certainly the official party apparatus. That is how far the political baseline has moved right in half a century.

[craigmatic]

272. Yeah pretty much. Our leaders are timid and more afraid of their base than us.

Whatever happened to the Coffee party?

[BrklynLiberal]

284. no no. The repukes are afraid of their base. The Dems hate their base.

It has become more and more obvious

[BrklynLiberal]

281. Jaw-droppingly astonishing... These Dems have no more shame than the repukes..

[man4allcats]

293. "We are being required to accept things that Democrats have never traditionally supported."

Required? We are required only if we believe ourselves to be required, and that belief is what the Blue Dogs count on to keep getting themselves re-elected. We are not required to take their crap. We can simply choose not to vote for them. "Oh no! Not that! Then the Republicans will win!" Well, as Sherman so aptly noted, "War Is Hell." The shit's got to stop somewhere, and there will doubtless be carnage before the dust settles. As for me, I don't consider myself required to do anything. For good or ill, I've always made my own rules, and I've got the scars to prove it.

[katandmoon]

296. K&R.

[ProSense]

299. The Party is getting better.

Using anecdotes and snapshots isn't really an accurate picture of the Democratic Party.

The fact is that all the handwringing over who is on staff doesn't actually make a difference. The policies are President Obama's.

What exactly has changed for the worse? Maybe we can go back to the good old days of the Clinton administration.

The President has ushered in an era of re-regulation, stronger oversight and action on many social issues.

Look around this country. Progressives are doing more complaining than trying to gain ground from a position of strength gained in 2008. The teabaggers are knocking off Republican Party favorites and what about progressives: two of the most progressive Senators are in the battle of their careers.

Why is that? What's the goal? Complain until 2012? Keep complaining?

Still, if anyone can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, they really need a refresher.

[jannyk]

306. Better for whom? nt

[ProSense]

311. Better for

the people who still support it and recognize that things are changing for the better.

[jannyk]

336. Where I come from, that would be known as...

..a circle jerk.

:puke:

[ibegurpard]

325. i'm very sorry you are finding people immune to your propaganda

[merkins]

305. The Party is getting Worse

Thanks Mad & Octafish for staying true and reminding us where we have strayed off course.

K&R!

[Vinca]

307. Great post. Maybe we're headed toward a split of both parties.

That might not be a bad thing.

[Bryn]

314. Kick for powerful message, for its truth ...

Rec'd :kick:

[Name removed]

316. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

324. Another "fucking retard" seconds your emotion!

[Octafish]

317. Bait and Switch

If I wanted to vote for Welfare Without End for Wall Street and the Corporate Crooks, I would have voted repuglikan.

If I wanted to vote for Unlimited Spying on Americans in the names of the Wars on Terror and Drugs, I would have voted repuglikan.

If I wanted to vote for Prosecuting Siegelman and Forgiving Gonzalez, I would have voted repuglikan.

If I wanted to vote for Worldwide Warmongering in place of Good Jobs, Good Schools, the War on Poverty, Universal Health Care, and a New Deal for the 21st Century, I would have voted repuglikan.

No. I voted Democratic, one vote in the majority of Americans that brought my Party to power in the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the White House. My reason was that the Democratic Party is the party that believes in using the power of government to make life better for ALL Americans – not just the rich and powerful. They already have a party, it's called the Republican.

[bobbolink]

323. Hot DAMN! I vote for YOU!!!!!

:applause:

[yourout]

319. Essentially our party is leaving us.

Not sure how we can get it back with how deep the Corporate corruption goes.

[pleah]

327. K&R

[IndianaGreen]

328. K&R

Thank you for telling it like it is!

:kick:

[Poboy]

329. Net recommendation: +336 votes

We clearly agree and see that this is true.

I can't tell you how depressed this makes me feel. How after having such hope and faith just two years ago, seeing the opportunity with all the good will be thrown away, squandered, and spat upon.
I can't tell you, but really I don't have to. I know many more are depressed and despondent as I am. The country will get much worse before it gets any better. This didn't have to be. Its crushing.

[amborin]

332. nowadays, being a "Democrat" means being a union-buster

[TNLib]

335. The one big difference between Dems and Repukes is

The republican politician bend over backwards to appease their base. They even seem scared of them at times.

Dem politician walk all over their base and don't care if we vote for them or not. Its really odd.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

340. That's because their base gets out there and does stuff. Ours likes to bitch and whine on the tubes.

They are made up of disparate special interest groups like the Dems. They understand they that they need to stick together to get things done. Ours believe that their pet issue trumps all and must take precedent. The addressing of sed issue better be 99.9% pure otherwise they are are walking.

[EFerrari]

346. What a crock. n/t

[truedelphi]

347. The Democrats new behavior is not only odd, it is rather scary.

Isn't it?

And welcome to DU.

Hope you enjoy being here.

[Horse with no Name]

338. And they shall witness, too, if we are HAPPY with the redefinition

I think, in the end, they will be unhappier than we will.

[ibegurpard]

342. kick

:kick:

[messiah]

353. People woke up too late

and they're still half asleep.
It started with Clinton but Clinton is admired around here so I'm kinda laughing at all the outrage and dissatisfaction.
Nothing will change people will vote for Democrats out of fear of losing and the party will move further to the right and land to where the republicans are at right now withing a decade.

People should stop complaining because half awoken Democrats nowadays won't do anything about it except complain.
People vote out of fear instead of hopes and dreams.
Fear keeps you from evolving and so you repeat history over and over again expecting a different result.

[Mimosa]

354. K&R! n/t

[blindpig]

356. Mebbe for the rank & file...

the party leadership has always known which side the toast was buttered on, but their job has been to temper and direct the masses. For reasons I can only guess at it seems clear that they cannot or will not invest much in that effort anymore. Some combination of the arrogance of power and the desperation of Capital has brought them to throw serious dissembling to the wind, grossly transparent fig leaves are what we get now, and people are noticing.

[Oak2004]

368. Talking from a historical perspective, I'm putting my money on the formation of one or more

new political parties. The current circumstances are extremely reminiscent of conditions prior to the formation of past major parties. I figure we'll see it within ten years, 20 years tops.

You'll know it's the real deal when a good chunk of the existing party, including most of the CPC, breaks away to join the new party.