So if President Obama doesn't win

[Andy823]

What are we going to get?

No matter who the republican is in office we will get:

More right wing judges so they can make up their own laws

The end of SS and medicare

The end of medicade

No more unions just low, low wages

The end of the middle class, with only the rich and everybody else

Privatization of just about every service we now get from public employees, along with a lot higher payments for those services

No more "regulation", the banks and Wall street will be free to go back to the Bush days that got us in this mess

Gas prices over $5 a gallon, if we are lucky

More wars

Now I am sure you can add to this list, but the bottom line is this country, and the world will be a far worse place with republicans back in charge. Anyone who is unhappy now, who is pissed off because the president hasn't done enough for them, and who are thinking about not voting next year, need to really take a hard look at what "could" be if he DOESN'T win. Think about how much worse things are going to be.

Bush took 8 years to almost destroy this country, it will take a lot longer than one term to fix the mess we are in, but if we give it back to the republicans we will be looking back, years from now, thinking that the Bush days were paradise compared to what we will end up with once republicans get their hands back on the wheel of power!

Don't let anyone here tell you the BEST thing is sitting home and not voting, because that sure as hell is what the right wants you to do, what the right wing trolls who come here want you to do, but it sure as hell won't be good for you, the country, or the world!

Please think about it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Historic NY]

2. So your saying we lose the Senate too.......the GOP will change the rules again..

That would mean the country favors the Republicans period.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I think you may be on to something.....

I think that folks may need to know what it is to live in a country that is so fucked up
that there is unity only in despair( we did it under Bush, but we may have forgotten).

Possibly, folks need to be kicked in the ass and in the face on a daily basis for at least 4 years,
longer if required, and then perhaps they will get it. I see what you are saying.
Let them suffer so that they eventually will see the light. Sounds like a genius idea.

Kinda of like going 20 steps back, so that we can hopefully, in a year's time, when we vote for a "real" progressive, we can take 10 steps forward to undo the damage....again.

Hope it works according to your vision....although playing Russian roulette
with all chambers loaded is what your strategy suggests more than anything.
It is brilliant for those who don't really care about the suffering of others at all.

[SwampG8r]

134. unity in despair really sums it up

when we were under bush this was a united front.it has been the observation of my life that as a party the democrats have more problems when they are in power.we seem to have a negative party view and when we are in power our own dissatisfactions make it almost impossible to govern.i have always noticed democrats are more united when they are outside looking in.perhaps that is why so many are so hard on this administration?they see themselves as outside looking in and in fact a great amount of their political identity is attached to the idea.

[JoePhilly]

22. too many blue dogs ... how do you think Bush got things passed?

The blue Dogs joined the united GOP.

[jwirr]

57. Wrong - they never had to. booosh had huge majorities to kiss his

ass in the rethug congress. Not supporting the bluedogs/centrists who have betrayed us continually in the last 2.5 years. They could have made this thing much different if they had bothered to act like Democrats in the first place. If they had bothered to go along with the Democrats 2010 would have been different.

[JoePhilly]

148. Bush never had a true filabuster proof majority in the Senate.

But the Blue Dog dems did ensure that the Dems could not filibuster much.

If you go back and look at legislation like Gramm-Leach-Bilely, Iraq war, original Bush tax cuts, Medicare part D, the same blue dogs voted with the GOP on these.

[StarsInHerHair]

151. it could be too much.....of a plant...

[Claudia Jones]

3. here is what we will get

- Clarity about where the battle lines are drawn

- A dramatic increase in interest in politics and action

- The discrediting and collapse of the pro-corporate faction that has gained control over the Democratic party

- Renewed focus and commitment by organized Labor, the environmental movement, the civil rights movement

- Consensus and solidarity on the left

- The unmasking of the conservatives among us who are sabotaging any possibility of progressive reform or a serious and effective fight back against the right wing

- Hubris and arrogance from the Republican party that will alienate and radicalize the general public

This is not what I want, not what I am advocating, rather it is what I am predicting. It is the inevitable result of the failed approach that the DLC conservatives-in-Democratic-clothing have forced upon all of us. Disguising that approach as "loyalty to the president" and clai9ng that it is in any way a powerful or effective response to the right wing may confuse and intimidate a few people but cannot ultimately work.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Yet they always frame this matter as "you have nowhere else to go."

What could get done if they all put all that energy into actually making the country better?

[CakeGrrl]

6. And what good will it do THEN?

Yeah, the Dems organize AFTER they hand the fascists ALL the keys to power.

If that happens, people had better be prepared to literally take it to the streets. Not armchair blogging or carping on message boards. They're going to have to TAKE control back from the extremists because it will not be relinquished without a nasty fight.

[Claudia Jones]

11. the "keys to power"

Being elected to political office is not getting the "keys to power." It is a well paid job working for those in power.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. How well did this approach work the last time we hit "rock bottom"

from 2001-2008? Just sayin' :shrug:

[Claudia Jones]

12. it was hijacked

The growing movement for social and political change was hijacked by a clever and deceptive marketing campaign. The DLC Dems first and foremost wanted to eradicate that movement. They were willing to cynically use it to get themselves into power, but them immediately set to work to destroy us. That effort continues, even as it becomes obvious that it is doing far more damage to the Democratic party than it is to the Republican party.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. Letting the GOP Tea Party have virtual free reign for 2-4 years

is a national suicide pact IMHO. Voluntarily given them any quarter is waaaaay too much to ask for IMHO.
:scared:

[Claudia Jones]

30. that is a scare tactic

The purpose of that fear tactic is not to beat Republicans, rather it is to beat back the left within the Democratic party. Republicans being in elected office does not give "the GOP Tea Party virtual free reign." (I assume you men "rein.") The right wing already has free rein, in large part because of compromise and complicity by those claiming to be our friends.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

59. Scare tactics? That's just reality

The right has free reign (that's how Republicans govern- like kings) in a lot of states (how's that working out BTW?) but their national agenda has been frustrated by having a Democratic Senate and WH. They haven't been able to repeal PPACA, defund planned parenthood, gut the EPA, privatize Medicare, etc. Give the GOP Tea Party control of all three branches and all of these things could become reality (and very quickly too!). Tell me that doesn't freak you out! If that's what you think is going to best serve our country and its people, then by all means, go ahead and pull the trigger but it's going to hurt a LOT more people than it's going to help in the short- and long-term IMHO.

[Claudia Jones]

61. of course

We do not disagree that the right wing has tremendous power. We disagree about the best way to counter that.

I say that the right wing has been enabled and strengthened by the Democratic party moving to the right and failing to fight for the working class people. What say you?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. The right wing has been enabled by people failing to pay enough attention

and a corporate media that distracts/divides people and gives a HUGE honking platform for the Republicans to use as a sledgehammer against us 24-7-365. Some elements of the Democratic Party (i.e. Blue Dogs) haven't been very helpful for us to be sure and I think we suck on messaging in general but we seem to have a lot more forces arrayed against us than for us IMHO. Until that glorious day when either the Republicans end their permanent state of filibuster in the Senate and/or we have a progressive supermajority in both houses of Congress, it will be difficult to push for the kind of agenda that is advocated here. It's not impossible but will require some time and more pressure from the local level to get to where we want things to be. Allowing the right-wing to keep getting back into power every 2-4 years isn't going to help our cause for sure.

[Claudia Jones]

74. or paying too much attention

I think it is obvious who gets their political outlook from cable TV and who does not. That leads people to believe that the only hope is "either the Republicans end their permanent state of filibuster in the Senate and/or we have a progressive supermajority in both houses of Congress." That is no hope at all.

The aim of cable TV and the right wing media is not so much to rally any troops or persuade anyone to right wing positions. Rather, it is aimed at liberals - to confuse and weaken them by presenting a false view of what the challenge is and where the battle lines are.

[Tesha]

66. The trouble is we *DIDN'T* hit rock bottom.

Enough people did enough that 30-40% of Americans still
thought things were just dandy during 2001-2008.

We really *DO* need a Great Awakening where even the
Bush-believing idiots come awake.

Maybe this time...

Tesha

[Proud Liberal Dem]

Sorry but I'm not going to join in this suicide pact

things were awful last year and it swept the GOP Tea Party into statehouses all over the country. Are we better off now because of it? What is "rock bottom" enough anyway? By the time it literally gets thrown in people's faces, it may be too late to do anything about it. By then, most of us may not have voting rights, etc.

[Claudia Jones]

76. it is never too late

We win eventually. The fear-mongering and negative talk among Democrats is not helpful.

The right wing succeeds because there is no powerful and constituent alternative message. They step into the vacuum. The solution to that is not to attack and exclude those calling for a more powerful and consistent alternative message.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

78. I agree on both points

It's not like the Democrats just found out yesterday that the media doesn't like them and does everything it can to puff up the Republicans. They should've realized that by 2000 at the latest IMHO. I'd like to know why we haven't gotten our act together YET.

[Claudia Jones]

80. the reason why

Some would have us believe that we haven't gotten our act together yet because the Republicans are too powerful, because "this is a center right country," and because the leftists and "special interest groups" like teachers and organized Labor and environmentalists and equal rights advocates are "making us look bad" and causing us to lose. They would have us believe that the interests of the owners and the workers, of Labor and management, of the haves and the have-nots, of the polluters and the environmentalists, of the bigots and the persecuted are more or less in alignment, and that if only we can transcend the "bitter feuds from the past" and manage government more competently that a "rising tide will lift all boats." They think we should take a middle-of-the-road moderate stance and compromise and work with the opposition.

That is one explanation.

[Tesha]

93. We "haven't gotten our act together" because we're not *SUPPOSED* to get it together.

we've been infiltrated by the Right since at least 1982
when Clinton and company established the Koch-funded DLC.
And they did precisely what they were supposed to do:
ensure that the Democrats couldn't raise any actual
challenge to the rising star of the Republicans.

Tesha

[Tesha]

92. Join or not, the result is still coming at you. (NT)

[Golden Raisin]

13. Very well articulated and I'd love to

believe it. But there are so many now simply struggling to survive against the crippling economy (keep a job, keep a house, put food on the table, save enough to put your kids through school). Then there are those who stare at 'Dancing With The Stars', or the latest adventures of the Kardashian sisters rather than vote, care, or protest in the streets. It's a lethal double whammy and the Republicans know it. I honestly don't know how bad it has to get before the citizenry really wakes up. And by the time it gets THAT bad, it's too late.

[Claudia Jones]

18. yes, I know

The solution was never to be found in partisan electoral politics, and realizing that is the path out of the trap you describe. We must stop caving in to the bullies from both parties - it will not work.

People do care, people have been organizing and protesting. The Democratic party tries to co-opt all of those efforts and out them to their own narrow partisan use. We saw this happen in Madison. All of the growing energy, solidarity, militancy and clarity was hijacked and channeled into an absurd and doomed recall effort.

[StarsInHerHair]

152. but I've watched those programs & I'm not politically illiterate, it's tv junkfood, that's all

[disillusioned73]

15. Amen.. k&r so people see YOUR post, thank you

:applause:

[Whisp]

24. '''- Clarity about where the battle lines are drawn ''''

Hubris, unmasking...
etc.,

And who exactly is going to message this? the Media?
:rofl:
All of a sudden the Blitzers are going to represent the people because they got a journalism attack suddenly?



sure.

[Claudia Jones]

36. that is not logical

The fact that we do not have access to the media does not mean there is anything wrong with our message.

I have no idea what "Blitzer" has to do with this. I would recommend to everyone here that they stop allowing cable TV to define their political reality for them.

[Whisp]

44. 'everyone here' is a very tiny tiny audience. you need the message to 'everyone out there'

you can have all the good messaging you want, but will it air? That is my Blitzer point.

We often here criticize the Dems for being so quiet and not fisty cuffy enough - well they aren't usually invited. Just read any listings for the Sunday news shows, for years now, and you can see that.

How do you plan to override the rightwing media and get your message out there louder?

That is the be all end of of anything that needs to be done - get word out.
If the media does not do fair play and equal time, then what?

[Andy823]

32. So

Letting republicans take over the country, again, for 4 to 8 years is going to help anything? I don't think so. Sure it will piss off the left big time, and maybe solidarity will come back, but will there be anything left of the country after they get finished? Will there even be a country left, or will be simply be under "corporate" government?

You might want to take that chance, but I don't. We have a far, far better chance of getting more done, and yes the president has done a hell of a lot in his time in office, with him in the WH than with ANY republican.

[Claudia Jones]

41. not what I said, is it?

I am not advocating and do not want Republicans to take over the country. We are not debating whether or not we want the Republicans to take over the country, but rather what is the best long tern approach to stop them.

The Republicans work for the wealthy few. They are errand boys for them. The wealthy few have already "taken over the country," in case you haven't noticed. The main reason for this is the lack of a strong opposition movement, and one of the main barriers to a mass opposition movement has been the persistent attempts by a faction in the party to steer anything and everything away from organizing and activism and into partisan electoral politics.

[jwirr]

62. If the rethugs take over it will be too late. The big 3 will be gone, the

election laws will be changed and the SCOTUS will be packed with rethug judges. Yes, we will be united and awake but we will have no non-violent means to fight back.

[treestar]

83. Bizarre

No that is not what happens.

[Claudia Jones]

86. it happened under Bush

Do you or do you not want that to happen if the hypothetical question asked by the OP comes true?

[Ter]

113. We didn't lose SS under Bush

And we won't in the next puke administration either, whether it be 2012, 2016, or 2020.

[treestar]

155. If you think it happened under Bush

Then what good did it do? It got a swing back only to a blue dog filled Senate and Obama. That's not progressive enough according to the brilliant lights of DU.

[Number23]

95. I am in awe of how some here can post the most deranged, incoherent bullshit

And couch it in terms so that the more gullible here eat it with a knife and fork.

Anyone who believes that more Repubs in the White House will lead to "solidarity on the left" and an "unmasking" of Dem conservatives all leading to the masses rejecting the Republican party is so deep in denial even Jacques Cousteau couldn't find them.

In order to make such an asinine, absurdly stupid claim, you would have to reject EVERY SINGLE BIT OF DATA that shows that large majorities of Americans identify as conservative. If you spend two seconds thinking about it, it's amazing that A) not only have we had two Dem presidents in the last 30 years but B) Obama has been able to get as much done in spite of not only unprecedented Repub obstructionism, but also in light of a public that views "liberals" with distaste and much distrust. You would also have to reject that the reason Obama's numbers are less than on fire right now is because of the independents and Republicans who have done everything short of getting tattoos on their foreheads that say "President Obama is TOO LIBERAL."

I don't know where you guys come up with some of this shit. I really don't. But you know that fear you have of "corporatists?" That's exactly how I feel about people who are so invested in a belief that they will twist, deny, ignore, minimize every bit of empirical, quantitative and qualitative data that shows that their beliefs are the rantings of the fringe and nothing else.

[Claudia Jones]

97. not much of an argument there

"EVERY SINGLE BIT OF DATA that shows that large majorities of Americans identify as conservative" is a myth that cable TV continually promotes, and that conservatives within the Democratic party use in their attacks on the left.

I invite any here who are confused about this to visit Pew Research online. I think you need to retract your claim about "every single bit of data."

http://pewresearch.org/

So, you claim that when the Republicans are in power there is not more solidarity on the left? How do you explain 2000-20008, the success of the Democrats in '06 and '08, the tidal wave of support for the election of Obama, the success of this very site?

So, you claim that the unmasking of conservatives-in-Democratic-clothing cannot happen when Republicans are in power? Then why is there any talk around here about "blue dogs?"

So, you claim that "fear" of "corporatists" is irrational and not based on reality?

And who is it that might be making "asinine, absurdly stupid claims," and who is it that will "twist, deny, ignore, minimize every bit of empirical, quantitative and qualitative data" to advance their cause?

So, you claim that organized Labor, environmentalists, GLBT equality activists, teachers, peace activists, opponents of the Patriot Act and the wars, of torture anmd detendtion and the other groups criticizing the administration are people with "beliefs (that) are the rantings of the fringe and nothing else?"

I think you just strengthened my case

[Number23]

101. So now we're pretending that majorities of Americans haven't identified as conservative

for the last 50 years or so? Anything else you want to pull out of your hat?

And it's almost funny how you just throw out a link to Pew Research. Not a link that supports your view. Not a link to a direct poll that refutes my point. Just a generic link to Pew.

In the meantime, not that's it's necessary to anyone who knows anything, but I will link to polls, articles, actual data that prove my point. But I have a feeling that you are a card carrying member of this new breed of "liberal" that don't believe in polls, particularly polls that disprove your beliefs.

2007 - 'Twice as Many Americans Conservative as Liberal' http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/twice_as_many_americans_conservative_over_liberal/
2008 - 'Sixty percent of Americans considered themselves conservative.' http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_biggest_missing_story_in_p.html
2009 - 'Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group' http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
'Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group' http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx
2010 - 'In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals' http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx
2011 - 'More People Consider Themselves Conservative Today Than at Any Time Since 1994' http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/more-people-consider-themselves-conservative-today-than-at-any-time-since-1994/

So, you claim that organized Labor, environmentalists, GLBT equality activists, teachers, peace activists, opponents of the Patriot Act and the wars, of torture anmd detendtion and the other groups criticizing the administration are people with "beliefs (that) are the rantings of the fringe and nothing else?"

William, err.. Claudia, this type of argument may win you a ton of friends at FringeRUs.com, but this argument is the height of dishonesty and desperation. Thinking these things are not the fringe and I have never suggested that they were, no matter how desperately you try to pretend that I did. But thinking that putting the Repubs back in the White House will bring about some new era of Democratic Unity -- until another Democrat is actually in charge and able to, you know, implement these very policies that you and your ilk are content to merely whine about for the next 16 millenia -- is.

[Claudia Jones]

103. extremely limited and deceptive

The only accurate and meaningful way to determine where people stand is to look at their responses to specific issues, not to which "team" they say they identify with.

But your curious line of argumentation on this subject points to an interesting topic for discussion.

If the public overwhelmingly supports the principles and ideas that the Democratic party claims to stand for, then why would it be that the same number of people do not identify as liberal or as Democrats?

Does not your argument here support my contention that the reason more people do not support the Democratic party is because it moving to the right, and away from the positions that the majority of people in the country hold?

Let's walk through the logic of this:

1. The public holds views on the issues that you characterize as "far left." There is a massive amount of documentation supporting this.

2. The Democratic party politicians move to the right. Even if we define the "right" as to the right of what you call the far left, this holds true.

3. Fewer people identify with the party. This is in fact your claim.

[Number23]

106. Extremely pointless and expected

I post five articles from varying sources from the last 4 years that directly contradict every single point you have attempted to make, and all you can do is throw out the "well, you can't tell what people are by what they identify themselves as." I thought your other arguments were weak. You were just getting warmed up, huh??

I guess we should go by what YOU and people like you consider people to be. Apparently, only YOU and your ilk understand the ideological differences. Only YOU understand what and how people really are and what they really think about the issues. This argument, in addition to being the very definition of the word elitist, is also patronizing, paternalistic and shows that there are truly no depths that some will go to convince themselves and others of their intellectual and/or moral superiority. What you don't seem to understand, by even making this argument, you prove that you possess neither of these qualities.

And as for your edit:

2. The Democratic party politicians move to the right. Even if we define the "right" as to the right of what you call the far left, this holds true.

The same folks who screamed "socialist" at Obama when he was on the campaign trail. The same folks who crowed when asked about letting a man with no insurance die. The same folks who scream "government is the enemy." This group of pumped up, radicalized people, you sincerely believe that they just vanished? They are on the news constantly. Jane Hamsher tried for some time to get "liberals" to align with these people. What they lack in number, the make up in voice. And unfortunately many independents have listened.

Obama's numbers with Democrats are strong. His numbers with liberals are even stronger. His weakness? INDEPENDENTS. You and your ilk can sit and scream until the trumpets sound that they are abandoning this president because he is moving "too far to the right." This was the "reason" given by people like you when Dems lost in 2010. This was the "reason" given when Coakley lost to Brown in MA. If this is the type of "logic" that people like you are going to prescribe, then it's a damn good thing that you are the fringe and that no one takes you seriously.

For the rest of us, it's apparent that indies are joining Repubs in going against this president because they view him as TOO LIBERAL. In addition to many feeling the president hasn't done enough about jobs, he is viewed by growing numbers of Americans as TOO LIBERAL. Rightly or wrongly, THIS is the truth that you refuse to see along with apparently every other bit of information in the world that doesn't already conform to your beliefs.

[Claudia Jones]

110. not true

Who cares if the tea party people and right wing media think that the administration is "too liberal?"

As I have pointed out, and documented (and there is much, much more available) on issue after issue after issue the public supports the left wing position. If they don't identify as liberal or Democratic in the same numbers, that is not because they do not support left wing policies and programs. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the difference in the numbers can be explained by the fact that Democrats are moving away from those left wing positions.

If more people support left wing positions on the issues than identify as Democratic or liberals, how can that possibly be used as a justification for saying that the public is conservative or for defending the Democratic party when it moves to the right?

[Number23]

116. If it was just the tea party and right wing media, you may have a point

But since it's not and the six, yes SIX, articles that I posted have painted the truth of the matter which is that AMERICANS, not just tea partiers, not just the "right wing media" view themselves as conservative.

You can twist and squirm. You can dismiss and deny. You can do all of this BS tap-dancing to deny the truth but it is what is is. And THIS is the environment that Pres Obama has to operate in. As I said, it's quite remarkable that he has been as successful as he has been given these conditions.

[Claudia Jones]

102. detailed rebuttal

From Media Matters:

It should come as no surprise that conservative media figures repeat the myth that most Americans share their views. Even when Democrats win, conservatives claim that their ideology is still dominant. On election night 2006, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume acknowledged that Democrats were winning, but stressed that "from what we could see from all the polling and everything else, it remains a conservative country."2 He did not say what "polling and everything else" he was referring to. Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News agreed, stating the following day that despite the Democratic victory, "the majority of Americans seem in favor of classically Republican points of view."3

But it was not just conservatives; in fact, they were simply repeating what they had heard mainstream journalists say for some time. "This is basically not a liberal country," said John Harris, then of The Washington Post and now of The Politico, in May 2005. "It's a conservative country." Previewing the Democrats' prospects for victory three weeks before the 2006 election, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley asserted that Democrats have been "on the losing side of the values debate, the defense debate and, oh yes, the guns debate."5 (Crowley presented no evidence that Democrats had been "on the losing side" of any of these debates.)

After the election, journalists found their explanation for the Democratic victory: they ran conservative candidates. "These Democrats that were elected last night are conservative Democrats," said CBS' Bob Schieffer the next day. "The Democrats' victory was built on the back of more centrist candidates seizing Republican-leaning districts," wrote The Washington Post. The New York Times anticipated the election with the headline, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right."

Among specific findings cited in the article:

More people than not support the following -

* Government should do more, not less 58-42

* We need a bigger government to do bigger things 59-41

* We need strong government to handle complex problems 67-33

* Government should provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending 43-20

* Government should care for those who cannot care for themselves 69-31

* Government should help the needy even if it means greater debt 54-46

* Government should reduce income differences 47-35

* Businesses do not strike a fair balance between profits and public interest 58-38

* Favor increasing minimum wage 84-14

The Pew Research Center found similar results. For the past twenty years, Pew has been tracking support of a government safety net for the poor. With remarkable stability -- though there was a small decline in the 1990s and a small increase in the new century -- it shows that people want a safety net. More than two-thirds (69 percent in 2007) believe the government "should care for those who can't care for themselves." They feel so strongly about it that more than half (54 percent) are willing to incur greater debt to get it done.

Furthermore, polling by the General Social Survey (GSS) reveals a strong desire for greater equity in America, and desire for the government to help achieve it. Americans certainly want to keep what they earn and expect greater work to yield greater rewards, but that's only the beginning. GSS polling since 1978 reveals a clear and steady preference for government action to achieve income equality. With the brief exception of 1994, the year of the Republican takeover of Congress, people have expressed a preference for government action to reduce income inequality. As the chart below indicates, the average difference over the study period was more than 14 percentage points.





On the subject of organized Labor:

American unions are in decline, but not because of public attitudes. The American people like labor unions. Pew Research registers a 56 percent favorable opinion of unions and 33 percent unfavorable.18 Gallup registers 59 percent approval and 29 percent disapproval.19 Gallup also shows that 38 percent of people want unions to have more influence in the country, compared to 30 percent who want them to have less influence. In labor disputes, 52 percent of people polled said they sympathized with the union compared to 34 percent who took the side of the company.

Furthermore, Americans believe that unions benefit not just their members, but the economy as a whole. Gallup records 53 percent who believe unions mostly help the U.S. economy, compared to 36 percent who say they mostly hurt.

On the subject of tax cuts:





There is much, much more along these lines.

It is simply not true that "every single bit of data that shows that large majorities of Americans identify as conservative."

http://mediamatters.org/reports/progmaj/

[Number23]

107. 2006, eh

I like Media Matters. And I'm not the slightest bit happy that more people consider themselves conservative than liberal. I think it shows the ignorance, racism and lack of awareness that has plagued this country since it's inception.

But the truth is the truth. My five articles in a random two second search prove it. Particularly compared to this one piece that I'm sure you've saved because it aligns with your point of view.

[Claudia Jones]

111. silly nitpicking

I have barely begun to make my case on this and have been kept busy responding to your obfuscations and insinuations.

Your articles support my contention, they do not refute it. They are evidence that the Democratic party is moving to the right.

My contention is that while the public supports the core left wing positions on most issues, the party is moving to the right. That would imply that the party should move to the left, not farther yet to the right. You have not addressed that.

[Number23]

115. Yes, it's "silly nitpicking" to notice that your one article was written in 2006

While the six articles that I posted that refute the entire premise of this piece were written afterwards.

There has not been one thing posted that "supports" your ridiculous claim that a Repub victory will lead to Dems sitting around singing We are the World, a denouncing of the Repub party and the ousting of conservative Dems in Congress. Nothing.

And the reason for that is because none of what you're saying makes any sense and is floating about 8 feet above the realm of reality.

[Claudia Jones]

118. very good

Glad you are still participating in this discussion. I welcome it. Far from ignoring you, or calling for others to, I hope that you will continue to expand on your opinion here in greater detail. The more people hear what you are saying, and the greater depth they look at this issue the better.

I am working on an OP on this topic and I hope to see you participating there.

The question is this: is the public conservative? (and furthermore, is this then a justification for Democratic party politicians taking middle-of-the-road positions and moving to the right?

You say "yes" and use that to justify a certain set of policies and approaches by Democratic party politicians. You bolster that claim by citing poll results asking people which labels they identify with.

I say "no," and claim that an in depth analysis of people's views show that on issue after issue the public supports the left wing position and that this is a better measurement than simple minded poll questions about partisan labels.

I agree with you that Democrats fare worse in polling then left wing issues do (you have not disputed the second part of that statement). You claim that this discrepancy is caused by the party being "too far left." I hold that your claim is illogical. If the public supports left wing positions in greater numbers than they do the Democratic party, then the people are to the left of the party and it is more logical that the party is losing support by moving to the right, not the left.

But this does deserve further examination, and I welcome that. The issue is of critical importance. I would like people to hear both sides of this debate in great detail and at length so they can make up their own minds.

[Number23]

121. If people support these left wing issues

WHY DO THEY INSIST ON SENDING PEOPLE TO CONGRESS WHO DO NOT SUPPORT THEM?

It almost seems that you feel that if you say something enough it will make it true. Let me give that a try: "Peter Rabbit is my father!" Does that mean that this is true now??

If the American people are so left wing as you insist, why has gay marriage lost in just about every state election until fairly recently? Why did members of Congress, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS, decline to support the public option in compliance with their constituent's wishes? Why is abortion still under attack DECADES after the SC deemed it legal? Why do we still have the death penalty?

I never said that the Dem party was "too far left." I said that the vast majority of Americans consider themselves conservative and that Obama's poll numbers are hurting because many independents have joined Repubs in reaching the conclusion that he is too liberal.

And whatever this OP is you're working on, I don't know why you're bothering. This web site is absolutely littered with the type of bizarre, unthinking inanities that you have spouted in this thread. I have no idea why you think that we need to see more of them.

[Claudia Jones]

124. they have no choice

One of the reasons why the voters send people who do not support left wing issues is because they rarely have any left wing choice on the ballot. Another reason is because the politicians from both parties lie to them. Another reason is because the two parties block out and eliminate any candidates with left wing messages, and the mass media prevents any left wing messages from getting to the public.

I am not insisting that the people are left wing, I am merely going by the in depth research done by the Pew Research folks as opposed to the simple minded fort-hire polling that we get from the mass media.

When the public is asked issue by issue where they stand, they overwhelmingly support the left wing position. That does not mean that they feel favorably about the Democratic party or the term liberal, of course. That does not mean that they would describe themselves as left wing.

The environment? Left wing.

Organized labor? Left wing.

The role of government? Left wing.

Safety net programs? Left wing.

Universal health care? Left wing.

Taxation? Left wing.

Public education? Left wing.

Safety and health inspection and regulation? Left wing.

Protection of public resources over privatization? Left wing.

When a significantly larger percentage of the public supports all of the left wing positions on issues than supports the Democratic party, the obvious place to look for the problem is with the party, not with the people. Blaming the people is simply a convenient excuse for failure for some, and a stealth way to promote conservative ideas for others. In either case, it is a serious threat to the party.

[Claudia Jones]

117. that is funny

So you now claim that since 2006 the country has moved to the right?

[ElboRuum]

96. In theory it's not probable to pan out that way.

What will happen is most likely a devolution into despondency, malaise, and since survival will require even more effort than it does now, indifference. I've often thought that political engagement is the luxury of the prosperous because no one else has the time.

[Claudia Jones]

112. that did not happen the last time

When people are hungry, losing their homes, out of work and unable to get access to health care, I do not think we will be seeing despondency and malaise, nor apathy. People being apathetic about a political party does not mean they are apathetic about politics.

Historically, people who have been much more beaten down than we are have fought back.

[coalition_unwilling]

130. Well put. To which I would add 25% unemployment, bringing large

masses of people face to face with what it was like in January, 1933. (If you are not yourself unemployed, you will know someone personally who is.)

I anticipate that the Dem Party will go the way of the Whigs, ca. 1856 and be replaced by a legitimate Labor Party. I've already written the AFL-CIO to suggest it start building one now.

[bobbieinok]

131. and we can live with a Reagan-GWBush world

or actually die faster.

You may loathe present democrats and Obama but THINK.

Sitting out lead to Nixon in 68 and rotten House in 2010. And of course the mess the "purists" made in 2000. Work to improve party, DON'T opt out.

YOU may be young enough or well off enough to survive the results of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," but the majority of us in the US are NOT.

Try living in OK if you want a life in "opt out of the democratic party" world.

Purists drive me nuts.

[Claudia Jones]

143. nonsense

This has nothing to do with being a "purist" nor with "loathing" anyone. You are projecting a very simple minded world view onto others.

I would be surprised if even 5% of the critics here - the ones you loath - will "sit out." However, 50% or more of the general public DOES sit out. That is the problem the critics are trying to address. But you are being a "purist." You will only accept uncritical Dem partisanship. It is all or noting for you. You see only one narrow way to look at this.

[joshcryer]

153. A move toward fascism never results in those things, never.

We'd become more and more immoral, more and more apathetic, more and more defocused, more and more uncommitted. History has shown this time and time and time again, when the fascists take power it works to their advantage. More and more the remnants of the democracy we do have would be eroded until nothing existed.

As far as a prediction goes it lacks any historical insight whatsoever.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. The election is still 13-1/2 months away.

Worry about what Obama is going to do with that time instead of what the Republicans will do if they get in.

If he actually governs the way he used to campaign, the people will come around and it will be another landslide.

[INdemo]

39. The media is just like a bunch of vulchers just waiting to jump on

anything negative about Obama..Someone conducts a survey of 10 people and 6 people disapprove of Obama and 4 people are for him they call that a poll and start the speal about how Obama has a 60% dissapoval rate..never mind how many people were asked..its a poll

[Pab Sungenis]

49. The disapproval numbers are inordinately weighted.

Hell, I disapprove of the job he's done! But I'm not going to vote Republican.

As I said, stop worrying about the election and start worrying about what he's going to do before the next election instead.

[eridani]

7. Who the fucking hell is recommending not voting?

I'm recommending that Obama get a strong values message, ASAP. Laundry lists won't do the trick. FDR was re-elected in 1936 despite widespread misery because people thought he was ON THEIR SIDE.

[Andy823]

27. Good plan.

That all works for me, but there are those who in 2010 were encouraging people to "stay" home, teach the president a lesson, and look how well that one worked, at least for the republicans that took over the house, and many state governments. I have already read post here where someone said "no way will I vote for Obama", others with their doom and gloom, and "what's the difference" meme. I don't always agree with everything the president does, but I know what it would be like if he lost to a republican, and how bad it would be if republicans kept the house, and even the senate.

[Tesha]

73. Perhaps you can point us to even *ONE* post that actually says that?

Those of us who were negative on the 2010 outcome
still wanted people to vote; we just knew enough wouldn't,
not after the pathetic job the 2009-2010 Congress did.

Tesha

[Andy823]

88. So you have never seen those kind of posts?

Where someone says they are NOT going to vote for the president, or when someone says we should teach him a lesson and just stay home? There were plenty of them here before the 2010 election, and next time I see one I will be more than glad to point it out, but they are not really that hard to find.

[Tesha]

91. So in other words, "No", you can't do it. That's what I thought. (NT)

[Major Hogwash]

136. Is it worth my time?

To show you gazillions of posts here at DU that advocate that very thing?
No, you can find them yourself, I'm sure.

[Claudia Jones]

98. that happens once in a while

I am sure that here and there, in frustration and anger, some person may say the things you are referring to. But that hardly justifies a general attack on any and all critics of party leadership.

[Andy823]

139. Well...

It was NOT a general attack on anyone who disagrees, and you can read other posts here where I have said as much, it was pointing out what will happen "IF" like 2010, many sit home and don't bother to vote. And it happens a lot more, posts trying to discourage people from voting for the president, than here and there.

[Claudia Jones]

142. I think it is something else

I think that the people who complain that others are "discouraging people to vote" are really upset because their illusions are being challenged.

We have massive nationwide suppression of voter rights going on, and we are to believe that left wing critics of sell-out Democratic party politicians are what discourage people from voting?

It is the sell-outs by the politicians that discourage people, not those who point out the sell-outs by the politicians.

[Andy823]

144. I think

That people who are in constant attack mode always posting negative comments about the president, or the party, may also have a different agenda than trying to keep a democrat in the WH. Have you posted any positive remarks about the accomplishments president Obama had since he has been in office?

When anyone tries to discourage others from voting, it should make everyone stop and think about what is going on. My illusions are not being challenged. I know that politicians are not doing that great of a job for those who put them in office, but are usually doing more for those with the big money. However I also know that any chance we have at all of changing things will happen with a democrat in the WH, and a majority in congress. I also know that any republican that gets elected to the WH would be a thousand times worse than president Obama. I also know that we need more real democrats in congress, but that won't happen if voters are gullible enough to buy into the right wing meme that it's better to stay home for whatever reason, and simply not vote.

Doom and gloom works well on those can be easily scared, or discouraged. The more right wing BS that gets spewed to them, the easier it is to convince them that democrats and republicans are all alike, and there will be no difference in how they run the country. All one has to do is see how the states that are now in control of the republicans are doing, how they have been tearing apart the rights of the people in those states.

So your idea that those of us who stand up to the nay sayers, those who discourage others, and those who try and get voters on the left to NOT vote, has anything to do with our "illusions" being challenged is pure hog wash! We care about who is in charge because we know no matter what, the democrats will get more for us than any republican will. Sure it won't be everything that every single person the left wants, but it's till a hell of a lot more than we would get with republicans in charge.

[Claudia Jones]

145. "attack mode"

I have been in what you derisively and dismissively call "attack mode" for 45 years. What sane and rational person would not be in "attack mode?" We have no real choice about this. The ruling elite has been in attack mode against us all along. We can surrender and submit, or we can fight back.

Fighting back against the ruling class does not discourage people from voting. Caving in, compromising and surrendering discourages people from participating.

No social and political change has ever happened as the result of elections. To say that our only hope is to have an election go a certain way is to say that there is no hope at all. To couple that with attacks on critics and dissidents is to crush out any and all possibilities. Talk about discouraging people!!

How can anyone believe that those who are saying to wake up and fight back are discouraging people?

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with what any individual person "wants." It is about what millions of people desperately need. Personalizing this trivializes and minimizes the crisis, and encourages people to go to sleep. It marginalizes the very voices we need to here. It is a set up that leads to character assassination against spokespersons for the working class.

[Andy823]

146. So why not

Take your message to the republicans, to wall street, big oil companies, etc. They are the "ruling class". Rallying democrats to fight each other is not helping that cause. Those who complain the most seem to want to make sure the president does not get a second term instead of going after the party, republicans, who have been blocking everything since president Obama took office, and even more so since they too back the house because people didn't bother to vote and republicans won, some by very small margins! Why not target those in congress, republicans and democrats, who have been there for their rich backers, but won't support the president to get things passed? If you have republicans who represent you in congress, why not take them on and find someone to run against them that might agree with your agenda?

Speak for the working class, that's great, but it's the democrats that fight for the working class, maybe not all of them but most of them, and go after the republicans who have done their best to make sure the president only serves one term. Make sure they don't get their way, because if they win, you lose, along with everyone in this country, Think about it.

[Claudia Jones]

147. using that reasoning...

If we had a fire department that refused to answer any calls or put out any fires, would we "take the message" to the arsonists? The "republicans, wall street, big oil companies, etc." don't care about us.

Once again, it is not "my agenda" nor "my message" I am talking about. That is a sleazy way to trivialize what people are saying. Politics is not salesmanship or evangelism.

You claim that Democrats are for the working class, yet accuse advocates for the working class of hurting Democrats. How can both be true?

[Andy823]

149. You are wrong

I do not accuse anyone I know is an advocate for the working class of hurting democrats. So just because the "republicans, wall street, big oil companies, etc." don't care about us that means we just ignore their actions and instead go after the president instead? If it's not your message you talk about the why talk about it? If you don't agree with what you post what is the reason for posting?

I have read all of your posts on this thread and for the life of me I can't figure out what your message is. I keep saying that putting ANY republican in office by sitting home and not voting is insane, and that no matter what you disagree with, the accomplishments of president Obama since taking office should be enough for any real democrat, or progressive to get out an vote no matter what because not voting could insure a republican gets elected, and that would be a disaster for the country, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway I am done with this discussion since it's pretty obvious that you have no intention of addressing what my post was about.

You take care now.

[Claudia Jones]

154. your view will prevail

No need to get worked up. Your view will prevail.

[Andy823]

156. Well...

No need to worry, you didn't get me worked up, not in the least!

[Claudia Jones]

157. excellent!

Glad to hear that.

[tblue]

9. If he does win

will the following 4 years be the same as the previous 4? What will Obama do in his second term? Seriously. Why does he want to be president? Has he said? Are his reasons your reasons? Does what we want matter to him or is it a "pony"? I'd really like him to tell us what we are voting for. That, and why we should believe him.



(I don't mean to bring down your message of being scared. All those Repubs terrify me. Only good thing about one of them winning would be all of us again working to defend Democratic principles. Other than that, yes, by the time they are through, we may not recognize this country.)

[jwirr]

71. IMO if he did nothing the next 4 years but hold the line he would still

be better than what the rethugs would do to us. Considering that he is going to be known as the first black president I would guess that he would like that to be a good thing so he will not just set around doing nothing. He also knows that following the rethug line will not accomplish anything for his standing in the history books. I expect him to do some great things - but only if we can give him a real majority in congress.

[FrenchieCat]

10. The problem that we have is that Obama has been getting pummeled every which way for so long

(since the beginning of his presidency), I don't know if it isn't too late
to reverse some of the damage done that would start encouraging folks to vote,
instead of them holding on to the disappointment card all the way till next year.

You see, although a lot of people believe that Internet voices don't matter,
I don't believe that at all. In fact, I believe that the reaction of the general
population is delayed, but a lot of it is generated by what the choirs sing on the
internet combined and on a consistent basis (I call it a pile-on soundtrack),
along with what the media has been doing just about every day for a really long time,
which has all added up to 90% 24/7 negative against this President, in general.

It is true that many care but can't help themselves in their zeal of criticisms,
and others don't really care anyways, because for them, what they personally feel as an affront
trumps the future. And then, others still, don't want this President reelected, no matter what he has done because they are Republicans. So it will not be an easy task, because various voices have communicated different things, but they all add up as one big negative for a large portion of this President's term.

In the Tea Party’s America, families must mortgage their home to pay for their mother’s end-of-life care. Higher education is a luxury reserved almost exclusively to the very rich. Rotten meat ships to supermarkets nationwide without a national agency to inspect it. Fathers compete with their adolescent children for sub-minimum wage jobs. And our national leaders are utterly powerless to do a thing. - CAP
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/16/320688/what-happens-if-the-tea-party-wins/

I don't know what the future holds, and many, if a nightmare scenario comes to pass will be too busy blaming this one President, to come to terms that they actually made a difference as well, but just in negative terms.

We can start to rally now, and unite in the goal of reelecting this President, but the damage may have already been done. Sure, perhaps Pres. Obama didn't help himself or us as much as some would have wanted....but I will always believe that he has been judged much harder than anyone else in our history; by both sides.

So we will see what we decide is to be our future, because as it has always been, it is still about us and what we do, much more than about any one man.

[Claudia Jones]

14. all administrations get "pummeled"

The criticism of this administration is mild and tame when compared to past administrations. Efforts to suppress criticism have escalated, not the amount of criticism.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I disagree with you totally.....

As for suppressing criticism, you are free to go for it.....
and feel righteous as you do it.
That's what some people do.

[Claudia Jones]

19. I know that you do

You may try to get people to believe that critics are motivated by some innate desire on their part to be critics. This distracts attention away from the possibility that the reason that there are so many critics (actually there are far too few) is a function of how sever the crisis is and how dangerous the conditions are.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Criticism about everything without support ain't worth shit.

Since I have never spotted you making any positive posts in threads reporting
what Obama has done positive in the two weeks that you've been here,
I'm not sure why you would think that anyone should believe that your motives
are what you say they are. In other words, I'm not taking your word for what your agenda is,
cause I ain't that stupid, and you have no track record (other than dogging out Obama in
your every posts).

You are working and instigating at justifying making folks cynical and apathetic....
with some twisted notion that if we are all getting fucked in the ass on a daily basis for long enough,
we will rise up.

In other words, you don't care about people, but you do care about making points.

[Claudia Jones]

25. this is simply not true

Apathy and cynicism are the direct result of the narrow partisan advocacy you are promoting. The horse race partisan electoral view of politics is boring and ineffective and puts people to sleep. It does put $$$ millions into the pockets of the corporate media, and it makes it easier for the conservatives within the Democratic party to control the party. "Lesser of two evils" and "where else ya gonna go" thinking makes people cynical. Attacks on the left - under the guise of "loyalty to the president" - hurt the administration and the party.

I speak positively about any and all efforts at improving conditions for the working class people. I criticize any and all attempts at advancing the needs and desires of the wealthy few. That transcends party loyalty. When it does not, there is no longer any reason for party loyalty.

I want to point out that your post is an attempted attack on the messenger and does not address the message.

We have come to a sorry state of affairs when the passionate advocacy of all of the principles and traditions that the party is supposed to stand for is characterized as springing from devious motives. Nothing could do more damage to the fortunes of the administration and the party than what you are trying to do here. You can cloak that in party loyalty to fool people for a while, but the long term damage you are doing to the party will not magically go away and we will all be paying a stiff price for that for a long time to come.

[tblue]

67. +1 Principle = bad. Politician/Party = good.

There are waaaay too many even Democrats who willingly put core party principles on the table, in the name of loyalty to party and/or politician. To what end, I don't know.

Those who who will never bargain away rights and protections are previous and few, and they'll get my loyalty as long as they never do. And right now they're the only thing giving us a fighting chance. Everybody else is ready to cut a losing deal. Somebody has to stand unyielding on our side.

[jaxx]

33. The pummeling usually comes from the other side, not within the party.

With President Obama the 'critics' feed the rightwing agenda with nonstop undermining. Whatever has been done is not good enough, shoulda been done this way or that way, woulda worked better if he followed my personal wants, coulda made more with less. It's ridiculous.

[Claudia Jones]

42. that is exactly backward

Which does more long tern damage to the Democratic party and enables the Republican party? Undermining the principles and positions that bring people to the party, or criticizing politicians when they undermine those positions and principles?

The right wing agenda is not advanced by advocacy for organized Labor, for public education, for an end to privatization, for universal health care, for stopping the wars, for GLBT equality, for protection of the environment.

[jaxx]

45. That is no argument.

Constant bashing...I'm not going to dignify it by calling it criticism....plays right into the rightwing agenda. If that's not enabling, then what is is?
President Obama stands for the things you wrote in your last paragraph.

[Claudia Jones]

47. you may not like it

But it most certainly is an argument that can be made. Feel free to make a counter argument.

[jaxx]

50. The Democratic Party is not the problem. They haven't changed.

Those who want them to, I would wonder why. Progress not fast enough? Congress getting in the way? Or just general lack of direction on the part of those who wish to take it down?

[Claudia Jones]

54. do you believe that?

Would you claim that the following speech in any way represents the positions and actions of the current Democratic party leadership?

If you agree with the sentiments expressed in the following speech, then I have no argument with you and also you will have to acknowledge that the Democratic party has in fact shifted to the right, and shifted to the right dramatically. If you do not agree with the sentiments in this speech, then you should say so and openly and honestly argue your point of view rather than hiding behind your claim to party loyalty.

Extra points if you can identify the person, the radical bent on tearing down the party, who made this speech.

A Rendezvous with Destiny

Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history. This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776 - an American way of life.

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy - from the eighteenth-century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

For more than three years we have fought for them. This convention, in every word and deed, has pledged that the fight will go on.

The defeats and victories of these years have given to us as a people a new understanding of our government and of ourselves. Never since the early days of the New England town meeting have the affairs of government been so widely discussed and so clearly appreciated. It has been brought home to us that the only effective guide for the safety of this most worldly of worlds, the greatest guide of all, is moral principle.

We do not see faith, hope, and charity as unattainable ideals, but we use them as stout supports of a nation fighting the fight for freedom in a modern civilization.

Faith - in the soundness of democracy in the midst of dictatorships.

Hope - renewed because we know so well the progress we have made.

Charity - in the true spirit of that grand old word. For charity literally translated from the original means love, the love that understands, that does not merely share the wealth of the giver, but in true sympathy and wisdom helps men to help themselves.

We seek not merely to make government a mechanical implement, but to give it the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity.

We are poor indeed if this nation cannot afford to lift from every recess of American life the dread fear of the unemployed that they are not needed in the world. We cannot afford to accumulate a deficit in the books of human fortitude.

In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity.

It is a sobering thing, my friends, to be a servant of this great cause. We try in our daily work to remember that the cause belongs not to us, but to the people. The standard is not in the hands of you and me alone. It is carried by America. We seek daily to profit from experience, to learn to do better as our task proceeds.

Governments can err, presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that Divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales.

Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.

There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

In this world of our in other lands, there are some people, who, in times past, have lived and fought for freedom, and seem to have grown too weary to carry on the fight. They have sold their heritage of freedom for the illusion of a living. They have yielded their democracy.

I believe in my heart that only our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is not alone a war against want and destitution and economic demoralization. It is more than that; it is a war for the survival of democracy. We are fighting to save a great and precious form of government for ourselves and for the world.

I accept the commission you have tendered me. I join with you. I am enlisted for the duration of the war."

[jaxx]

64. You said:

If you agree with the sentiments expressed in the following speech, then I have no argument with you and also you will have to acknowledge that the Democrat party has in fact shifted to the right, and shifted to the right dramatically. If you do not agree with the sentiments in this speech, then you should say so and openly and honestly argue your point of view rather than hiding behind your claim to party loyalty.>>>

Around here we call our party the Democratic Party.

I am done with you. The game is over.

[Claudia Jones]

77. scraping the bottom of the barrel there

I corrected the typo.

I suppose you would now have the naive and gullible believe that a "freeper" would post that speech here? LOL.

[tblue]

159. Dang, Claudia Jones!

You put it so well! Welcome, too, btw! :hi:

[jwirr]

75. I remember the death of FDR and I have never seen a president

get pummeled like this from every side and with rethugs in the congress who are willing to sacrifice the country to get him out. This is a first.

[Claudia Jones]

99. just not true

We can start with the vicious battle between Adams and Jefferson. Both of them were under vastly greater attack and criticism than the current administration has been.

Opposition to Lincoln caused secession and a civil war.

More recently LBJ and Carter were both challenged in the primaries and left office. Nixon was thrown out of office. Clinton was relentlessly and viciously attacked. In all cases those administrations received far more criticism than the current administration is and were attacked much more than the current administration has been.

[jwirr]

119. Well I did say I remember FDR - not Adams and Jefferson. When

I said that I meant modern presidents whom I actually remember and I meant the deliberate obstruction of government. These people are willing to destroy the country to get him. That is you and me that they are willing to destroy just to get rid of him. The others were opposed on political grounds not intense hatred.

You know in all the posts here I read all of yours and I never did understand what you are trying to say. It seemed to me that one time you argued one way and the next just the opposite. I would appreciate understanding - are you arguing for criticism or against it? And I don't think I am the only one.

[Kennah]

23. I've thought about it, and it sounds like we're going to get fucked.

[Mr Deltoid]

26. If Obama loses it's his own fault

Obama decided to shun Democratic ideals as a tactic to lure independents. The tactic has failed. Obama can stay the present course and lose or step back into the light and have a chance at winning. It's his choice.

[Andy823]

29. Bull!

He can't do anything by himself, it takes CONGRESS to pass laws, not him. If you think it's ALL his fault you need to get better informed!

[Claudia Jones]

35. straw man arguments

No one is saying that a president could or should do it alone. No one is saying that it is all the fault of the administration. By characterizing the arguments of those with whom you disagree in an absurd and extreme way you are seeking to discredit what they are saying without being bothered to actually address what they are saying.

The direction that the leadership of the party is taking the party is a disaster for the party. Claiming, as some here do, that "stay the course" is party loyalty, and that those advocating a change in course are being disloyal is illogical and inflammatory. That can only worsen the damage that is being done to the party - not to mention damage to the causes that led us all to support the party in the first place, and not to mention the damage it is doing to the working class people in the country.

[jaxx]

38. Some want the party dismantled and turned into something else.

They are wrong in that ideal.

[Claudia Jones]

43. very true

Some do want "the party dismantled and turned into something else" and they have now been proven to be "wrong in that ideal."

The DLC has been working hard at jettisoning and crippling what they call "special interest groups" - Labor, teachers, environmentalists, GLBT equality advocates, and anyone else standing in the way of the corporate agenda - and at transforming the Democratic party into a moderate version of the Republican party.

You may be in support of their effort, in which case you should openly and honestly make that case. But your attempts at portraying those of us who are opposed to that the ay you are is without rational foundation.

[jaxx]

48. No, you have it wrong.

And when you start throwing around the "corporate agenda" talk, it's pathetic. Don't try preaching to me, I've been a Democrat too long to buy into the ideals of the 'critics'.

[Claudia Jones]

58. pathetic?

Please go to this site:

http://www.dlc.org/

Read what they have to say there. If you agree with them, fine. Argue in their defense. If you do not agree with them, then please acknowledge that the critics of that DLC third way approach have a legitimate cause and stop insinuating that they are all traitors to the cause or working for the opposition.

The DLC is openly working for the corporate agenda. You want to insinuate that those who oppose that are the ones helping the Republicans.

[Andy823]

89. well...

I do want to see some changes, but I also know that everything I want is not going to happen, that there has to be some kind of compromise in order to get "anything" done. Yes, sometimes it's to much compromise, but gaining something, anything, sometimes is better than nothing at all, as with health care, or getting an extension for those receiving unemployment benefits last year. As for the "disaster" you talk about, it would depend on how you think it should be changed. If it's the "all or nothing" approach to things, that's no better than the tea party crap of "my way or the highway".

[Claudia Jones]

31. a failed approach

Yes. The DLC approach has failed.

[BeFree]

51. You sound good, Claudia

But you are barking up the wrong tree. The tree you want is congress, not Obama. Nothing you do or say is going to effect Obama, but you have a slim chance at changing congress.

[Claudia Jones]

55. I am not going after Obama

Although, why is it so important whom we elect to the White House if that then becomes the wrong tree to bark up?

I bark at every sell out Dem that is caving and compromising with the right wing. I think that is very much the right tree.

[BeFree]

65. Well

Bark on, dude. But really, you should be barking at enemies, doncha think? At least the dems are kinda for ya. Of course, you keep biting ankles because they don't feed you just the right food and who can blame them if they kick you to the curb? That is just political reality. You get more bees with honey than you do with shit.

[Claudia Jones]

70. yes, of course

Of course we should be barking at enemies. There is a difference of opinion within the party as to just who the enemies are. Some think that anyone claiming party loyalty is a friend (wonder if they would apply that to the Democrats in the South who were violently opposed to the Civil Rights movement?) and that anyone placing anything higher than party loyalty is an enemy.

"Kinda for ya" is often worse than not for ya at all, don't you think? Lincoln did.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends - those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work - who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now? - now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

- from the House Divided speech

That paragraph is as relevant today as it was then.

Nothing is gained from the "bees" - the owners - by presenting them with honey. Ever.

So you are saying that the politicians are our masters and we should accept that? That they are justified in kicking us to the curb because we didn't give them honey?

The OP asked us to think about what would happen if Obama loses.

In that circumstance - raised by the OP's question, not by me - would you or would you not want to see the following happen?

- Clarity about where the battle lines are drawn

- A dramatic increase in interest in politics and action

- The discrediting and collapse of the pro-corporate faction that has gained control over the Democratic party

- Renewed focus and commitment by organized Labor, the environmental movement, the civil rights movement

- Consensus and solidarity on the left

- The unmasking of the conservatives among us who are sabotaging any possibility of progressive reform or a serious and effective fight back against the right wing

- Hubris and arrogance from the Republican party that will alienate and radicalize the general public

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Claudia Jones]

84. I am not sure about that

First of all, advocacy for equal rights, environmental protection, organized Labor, and the public infrastructure is not "I want it my way and now." Those traditional positions of the left are and always have been support for what is best for everyone, not what any individual "wants." Characterizing the left that way is reactionary and destructive. Too many have sacrificed too much in the struggle while gaining nothing for themselves personally from that to allow that smear to stand unchallenged.

In order for people to stick together they need to have a basis for consensus. The Republicans consistently and reliably and effectively promote the interests of the wealthy few and tear down anything that helps the many. They represent the "haves." The Democrats could be equally consistent and reliable fighting for the have-nots. But the Democrats are divided about that, on issue after issue.

By the way, "dumbasses" are much more likely to abandon the Republican party and to vote Democratic as a result of a strong working class advocacy - even if that means criticizing some Dem politicians who are kissing the asses of the owners - then any rah rah partisan pitch ever will. Thinking of people as "dumbasses" doesn't help.

Can you not see that what you are saying right here is what alienates people and turns them away?

[BeFree]

87. You're missing a lot

The democrats are keeping all those environmental, equal rights, etc. things alive. And you act like we are not! You're barking up the wrong tree! And then you allude that I am somehow smearing those ideas! WTF? Are you for real?

I knew you'd get around to falsely accusing me of something, I can read your type a mile away. You are only happy when you are causing dissension. Well, barker, you've nailed yourself.


Besides, if you really want to change things, you'd be barking at the voting machines, but I'd bet you are all too happy with those, eh?

[Claudia Jones]

100. wrong

I have been active in the fight against Republican election theft and electronic voting from the very beginning. I happened to have been a key player in moving the Green party to challenge the '04 results. (I am not a Green so let's not go down that road.)

[Number23]

122. "And frankly, your barking here, on this thread, makes me want to get the fuck away from you."

Join the club!! We're getting t-shirts on Sunday. :)

:thumbsup:

[treestar]

81. Obama's not going to suffer from that

Stupid reasoning. Are you going to be so happy gloating that he lost that it will make us for whatever the R President does?

[Kennah]

28. More predictions

Large tracts of abandoned housing, and squatting might become the 21st Century American Dream.

A lot of migration for healthcare--nearer the Canadian and Mexican borders, or to states which implement Single Payer. I wonder if the horse and buggy will see a comeback?

Increases in the number of people dying because of starvation, exposure, and waterborne microbes.

GOP will have to impose much more expansive voter disenfranchisement to hang onto their Reich.

Mandarin as the second language first, then as the first language second.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Claudia Jones]

46. this is a call out and a lie

You are attacking the supporters of single payer, environmental protections, civil rights and equality, support for organized Labor and claiming that they are "freepers."

No one here said "its ok if Obama loses" nor that "it might not be so bad to have a Repuke majority." That is a smear and a dishonest debate tactic.

Some have said that the struggle will go on and that it may not be the end of the world if an election turns out one way or the other, and are talking about building a broader, more effective and more powerful opposition to the right wing. Where are the "freepers" who are talking about that? They do not exist. No "freepers" are saying that the Democratic party would be more effective if it stopped moving to the right. No "freepers" are criticizing Democrats for moving to the right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Two Things

It will be an unmitigated disaster if President Obama loses and President Obama losing is a real possibility. I don't think any dispassionate observer would say at this point the 012 presidential race is anything but a pick em. I am praying the Pubs nominate Perry as he is the easiest Pub to beat out of those Pubs who have a realistic chance of winning the Pub nomination.

[murielm99]

37. Riots in the streets and general strikes. n/t

[jaxx]

40. Surely that isn't the goal of the critics, or is it?

[Claudia Jones]

52. strategies are not "goals"

If organizing, strikes and resistance are what are required in order to relieve the suffering of the working class people tactically and strategically, that does not mean that those are "goals." They are means, not ends.

The "they are advocating violence!" argument has been used throughout history in opposition to every movement for social and political justice - the Abolitionists, organized Labor, the Civil Rights movement. Shameful to see Democrats using it today.

[jaxx]

56. Nothing you said makes any sense.

[tcaudilllg]

127. Sheepdog dems are the undiscovered wing of GOP

[murielm99]

53. It depends on which critics you mean.

I think the repubbies would love it.

[tcaudilllg]

128. If disorder does come

this time will be different. I think there is potential to light a bigger fire.

[tcaudilllg]

125. I agree

The blacks will take to the streets like no time since MLK. This could precipitate a new Black Panther movement.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. I Think There Will Be More Social Than Economic Damage

The Republixcants don't have the balls to roll back popular programs like SS and Medicare.

[frazzled]

69. Are you kidding: who do you think CAUSED this economic mess?

It's going to take a long time to pull out of it. And this administration DID pull it back from the brink. But two years wasn't enough, and it's sagging again, due largely to the stubbornly slow job situation and a housing market that just won't come back fast enough.

If a Republican comes in, expect more policies that will put us back in the crapper. We're sitting on the edge of the seat as it is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I Really Think The Economic Mess Is More A Function Of Capitalism Than Either Party Malfeasance

When the internet bubble burst the Fed just created another bubble in the housing and financial markets with easy money. As Marx said capitalism is characterized by a series of booms and busts with each bust worse than the one that preceded it.

Anyway. I stand by my assertion the Republicants don't have the balls to kill Social Social Security or Medicare. That's why Bush* added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and retreated from his plan to privatize Social Security.

I do see the Pubs doing tremendous injury to the rights of gays, women, Latinos, and other groups.

[treestar]

82. Agree - they talk a lot but no action

None on abortion either - they want to keep that as a wedge issue.

[Claudia Jones]

85. the difference

When Republican politicians try to advance the interests of the wealthy few, there is a possibility of us uniting against that. When Democratic party politicians try to advance the interests of the wealthy few, we are divided.

[jenmito]

90. AND, they'll make it so a Dem. NEVER gets elected president again. n/t

[Andy823]

141. That would be highly possible

They are already trying to take away people votes in the states that the republicans took control of back in the 2010 election, and if they gain control of the WH, and congress, I am willing to be they would do far more to take away votes from the people who usually vote for democrats!

[great white snark]

94. Totally agree.

Much, much more needs to be done and Dems need to be the majority. Liberal Dem when can, any Dem when can't.

[DCBob]

104. Probably lose the right to vote unless you pledge allegiance to Rush Limbaugh.

maybe not quite that bad but it will get ugly.

[Safetykitten]

105. "If"?

[Logical]

108. I 100% agree. Obama is better than any GOP candidate. But that's about it.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[tcaudilllg]

126. No, if it doesn't use logic to select the candidate, it shouldn't exist.

Whole idea of democracy is that people are smart enough to choose the best man for the job.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

114. See my siggie and thanks for the OP!!

[Andy823]

138. I like your signature line! nt

[harun]

120. No pain no gain.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Hart2008]

129. Unrec for false dilema. Obama will have a primary challenger. NT

[Yavin4]

132. Even If We Hit Rock Bottom Under a Republican Government...

The American people would still not organize and fight back. There are too many distractions in our culture. Video games, Facebook, Twitter, TV, Movies, Books, religion etc. all of these things act like a pacifier on the populace to keep us docile.

We would just slouch into poverty without even a whimper.

[truth2power]

133. Here's my cut & paste, andy...

No matter who the republican is in office we will get:

More right wing judges so they can make up their own laws

The end of SS and medicare

The end of medicade

No more unions just low, low wages

The end of the middle class, with only the rich and everybody else

Privatization of just about every service we now get from public employees, along with a lot higher payments for those services

No more "regulation", the banks and Wall street will be free to go back to the Bush days that got us in this mess.

Gas prices over $5 a gallon, if we are lucky

More wars.


* * * * *

Other than what I've crossed out, everyting else is pretty much happening as we speak, and will probably be a done-deal by 2012.

RW judges? I think you're correct about that.

Gas prices? I have no way to predict, but probably will happen either way.

[blkmusclmachine]

135. What are we gonna get? Quick answer:

Like Mexico. Only worse.

[ellie]

137. Some elements on DU will be so happy!

[Andy823]

140. Sure seems that way doesn't it

Plain old Obama haters or right wing trolls, there are a lot of people here who NEVER post anything positive about the president, or what he HAS accomplished since he took office, they only post negative post, after negative post doing their best to bash him. I really makes one wonder what their agenda really is!

[vaberella]

150. Why does your post seem as though you're begging for people to vote for Obama?

Don't beg....just let them do what they want. They get what they asked for and sometimes what they didn't ask for. End of story, there is no supplicating from me.

[Imagevision]

158. Even Karl Rove doesn't want Perry in the White House...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

160. Wars without end and Big Brother

I think we might leave if that happens

[Zoeisright]

161. Yep, exactly.

Too many democrats shoot themselves right in the ass by this practice; just look at selection 2000.