So let me get this straight,

[Phlem]

when Democratic constituents are critical of the 3rd way, neo-liberal positions and policies in the party, we're "dividing" the party.

Really!? Really!? That's what we're being sold now?

[FSogol]

1. What is the advantage of complaining about one group of Democrats this close to the election?

Is it too hard to set our sights on defeating the GOP right before the election?

[Phlem]

4. Bud I voted 2 weeks ago.

Done, done, and done. Straight ticket D.

[FSogol]

8. Awesome, but many have not voted yet. Despite your ballot we are still approaching election day.

We should be pulling for our team, not criticizing other Democrats.

[Phlem]

10. Your missing my point.

If we're not voting for those Republicans why are we voting for ours?

[FSogol]

13. I didn't miss your point and thanks for proving mine.

You are encouraging people to not vote for certain Democrats. You are doing it 3 days before important midterms.

Why?

[Phlem]

15. No I'm not I'm asking a freakin question

Don't put words in my mouth Chief.

[ancianita]

71. Let me get this straight. You've had since the last election to know why you vote for our team.

If you don't know it by know, are you still asking why the team is worthy of your effort?

Do you still want to play? Are you asking a freaking question to others about the play by play strategies right up to game time?

Isn't that kind of a weird way to win? Not caring how close game time is and still criticizing the rules and other players?

I'm just asking: what is the point of your asking, at this point?

[Phlem]

75. Did you read the op?

Being accused of the dividing the party when I'm critical about the right wing side of our party? Can you ponder how completely asinine that is? So it's not the 3rd way or neo-liberals that are at fault for dividing the party, it's me?

I've been playing this game for far too long ancianita to the the current point and will continue to play long after. I have a family and a little girl. I know exactly what's on the line. The job that I put myself through college for was shipped over seas over night. We have a right wing Supreme court and perpetual war. Finally what's my daughter to think when I'm working right beside her at McDonalds in the future. I know what's on the line.

I'm very concerned why our party needs to move to right? If I'm not voting for the right because they are so bad, why do we vote for the right in our party. I see no benefit to that but short term gains. What happens next election cycle. We vote for someone even more conservative in our party. If that keeps going then we're vying for who's the craziest conservative instead of being the opposition party.

It's gotten to the point where moderate leftist are being called the tea-left. There is absolutely no equivalent of the tea party on the left side. It just doesn't exist. Yet we keep marching to the right and continue to hammer anyone in our party who might see an issue with our party moving right. To the point where we need to extinguish voices.

When do we eventually turn left?

[ancianita]

87. I hear you and appreciate your elaborating on your OP. It's probably our lot as liberals to deal

with the worst of our party, and we've fought them for decades. The turn left, as I've come to see it over those decades, is a long, hard one.

I can't say that you should be happy about our voting choices. I've been bitching about party leadership -- Schumer, the Clintons, Wasserman-Schultz and the rest -- for years.

But a couple things you should know are that, first, you are in a sizable majority of this party, the part that, with the help of Warren and Sanders, can get newer, lefter planks in the party platform. Evolutionary pace, yes, but still necessary.

Second, there is the larger moral issues at stake that you stand in company with. To disengage from a process others still fight and die for a chance to do, is regressive, not progressive. I believe that you will, for the long game, vote because you can. You'll vote for all the women and girls you know, knowing how hard it's been for that, and because your daughter needs a good example of someone making effort for other voters, if not for moneyed interests or representation.

Vote because of SCOTUS. For all the daughters, the Supreme Court. It is that simple for women. You and all women will have to live by what they rule. In that sense the party appointments are NOT the same.

You know that many of us tend to deny it, but there really IS a difference in the rules the two parties make. You can help put the ones in who make rulings you are comfortable with.

We know the deal. Even if your heart's not in it. But we're with you, seriously.
Vote anyway. The consequences are felt long after we can't see what they will be. We've already experienced the good of it. We need to carry on with more faith in each other.

(And I want Democrats, good bad and ugly!)

Anyway, thanks for your response.

[Phlem]

88. Thanks for your reply ancianita

I really appreciate it. I want Democrats too, except for the ones who still vote Republican but label themselves as Democrats, that's all. The dialogue in our party can be shifted by those and we end up with a conservative every time, Democrat or Republican. But I agree, which why I have and will always vote Democrat. I know too damn well what happens when a Republican holds a government position.

[Raine1967]

16. TOS for Democtratic Underground:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Phlem]

18. Oh OK, so the mindless zombie walk then.

And for the second f'ing time I was asking a question.

[Raine1967]

20. That's the DU TOS words, not mine.

That's what you agreed to when you chose to be a member of DU.

There is a reason why you are getting pushback in your OP, Phlem. in particular, this:

Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

If you are saying something that is not being understood, I'd suggest a different way to communicate it.

[BP2]

53. Why support Democrats if they still act like repubs?

PUMA

[randys1]

12. I like what Dave Marsh said one day on his Sirius radio show, he said:

"Lets work 24/7, year round, year after year, to get actual liberals in office so we can fix this badly damaged country, and take 5 minutes out on election day (5 minutes if you are white, 9 hours if you arent) and vote for the least objectionable option to limit the damage." (paraphrasing)

Translation: Talk all day long if you want about how the 3rd way (what a deceptive name, really) is evil and infiltrating the Dem party, all true, but completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, and the matter at hand is:

"Try and stop politicians who will cause tremendous harm if elected, from being elected"



Remember, your average Dem candidate wont vote to force Women in to back alleys, your average Repub will, even if they dont want to...

[Phlem]

38. But the average Dem can be the co author of the TTP?

And blue dogs can't fuck anything up?

Why the hell did I just vote a straight D ticket?

[NYC Liberal]

86. "Why the hell did I just vote a straight D ticket?" -- Why don't you tell us why you did?

[merrily]

41. Yes, I like that, too, but culture war issues are not the be all and end all

of governing. Even though a lot of people in DC have been acting as though they are

Besides, Phlem is not urging anyone to vote Republican.

[ieoeja]

14. You voted. Others haven't. You are discouraging them four days before the election.

This discussion can have only two possible outcomes at this point.

1. Convince people to not vote Democratic.

2. Convince candidate to make a last second effort to appeal to liberal views that are the majority view in every state and congressional district in the United States.

#2 is not going to happen this late. #1 is the only likely result.

[Skidmore]

19. +1

[Phlem]

26. I voted but I'm discouraging others from voting?

OK, good luck with that.

[merrily]

40. You simply can't possibly be serious.

One OP, by a poster who voted straight D, no less, is going to convince DUers to change their vote or stay home? That's all it takes? If that's reality, boy, have both parties been wasting a shitload of money, time and energy on fundraising, media buys and whistlestops.

And, last minute of not, you think candidates formulate their campaign strategy by reading DU?

[woo me with science]

90. I'm going to get whiplash

from the Third Way telling us first that liberals are "fringe" and irrelevant, but then that we are so powerful that a critical post on a POLITICAL DISCUSSION BOARD is going to sink the election.

Corporatists really need to start having their talking point meetings all together in the same room.

The ONLY people I see deliberately trying to reduce turnout are the corporate faction of the party. In fact, I can't *ever* remember seeing such a sustained, relentless, and deliberate effort to discourage, demoralize, and outright attack the base of the party. It makes no sense whatsoever, until you realize that corporate politicians depend on divided government in order to be able to continue to claim to the electorate that they cannot stop predatory corporate policies.

I presume you have contacted the DCCC about this garbage?

"Accept Defeat" <--- newest DCCC fundraising email
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025736826

[ecstatic]

9. +1000. nt

[Scootaloo]

51. What's the advantage of telling liberals to shut up their complaints about conservative democrats?

Unless your mentality is that party loyalty is more important than principles?

[FSogol]

56. Three days before the election. 3 days. Is it really that hard to support our candidates

regardless of their purity at election time? These complaints and criticisms are appropriate at primary time, not at election time. Otherwise, candidates that will agree with you 80% of the time will be jettisoned for GOP candidates that only agree with you 30% of the time.

[el_bryanto]

2. Yep. Remember parties aren't about representing ideals or political positions

they are about winning elections. If you want your party to represent your philosophy or any philosophy really you are sadly mistaken.

Bryant

[Phlem]

3. I agree

so what's the point. Are we back to the other guys are more evil?

[el_bryanto]

7. Joking aside - the other guys are more evil.

But we can't get our party to take our concerns seriously while at the same time promising to vote for them no matter what.

Bryant

[whatthehey]

5. If you want your philosophy to advance without any power

you are far more mistaken

[Maedhros]

17. So I should vote for Democrats who want to advance philosophy I don't want,

just because they oppose another politician whose philosophy I don't want?

My solution is to vote for politicians that will advance my philosophy. If they happen to be Democrats, that's great.

[Skidmore]

21. It is ever so much more productive to do nothing at all

then. No one will absolutely agree with any one of us all of the time.

[whatthehey]

35. Do you like their philosophy or the only other feasible option better?

We can whine and cry all we like that the two party system is terrible. I agree. But it's what we've got. In more than 99% of all national cases we get either D or R. Not voting D increases the likelihood of R

I know the cliched retort by the way. I'll just never understand why lessening evil is a bad thing in a moral dichotomy.

[Maedhros]

39. I voted for the Democratic Senatorial candidate (Jeff Merkeley) in my district.

However, the biggest problem facing liberals in America is that the traditional Liberal party is openly thumbing their noses at us. They know we have nowhere else to go, and are extorting votes from us using fear of the Republicans. The result is that we get horrendous policies from the Democrats - just ask a teacher, for example.

The only leverage we have is at the ballot box. If Democratic politicians push damaging policies (e.g. the TPP, elective war, blanket surveillance, militarized police, etc.) we cannot expect positive change if we give them a pass, over and over and over again, by voting for them anyway. I'm of the opinion that we need positive change, not the status quo. The "lesser of two evils" approach guarantees the perpetuation of the status quo. Last I checked, perpetuation of the status quo was a Conservative goal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. ooooh so more hate of the Democratic Party by

Self described Democrats....just days from a close midterm....seemingly complaining that both partites are the same.....right here on a Democratic Forum...

[hobbit709]

11. According to some posters here if you're not a 150+% cheerleader, you hate the party.

I say the hell with them. I've never been an enthusiastic cheerleader for anyone and I'm not starting now at the age of 64.

[Andy823]

22. And according to some posters here

Both parties are the same, which is pure BS! Why would anyone tho thinks that way waste their time here if they actually think that?

[Phlem]

23. ...

[hobbit709]

24. There's a lot more of the former that accuse you of being among the latter if you don't cheerlead.

[Andy823]

44. I really doubt that. nt

[hobbit709]

45. I don't doubt it at all. It's been said to me more than once.

[merrily]

31. I am an enthusiastic cheerleader for the 90%.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

64. Exactly.

I see that here all the time too!

"If you're not a 150+% cheerleader, you hate the party."

Over and over again. All the time. I can't even count the number of times I've seen that here. Can't even count it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. .

[Phlem]

27. awesome.

[Man from Pickens]

28. Pay no attention

to the radical corporatism behind the "third way" curtain

[Marr]

29. Have you ever noticed it's only conservative Democrats who say voters should shut-up?

I've seen them cite elections that are two years away as a reason you should shut-up today.

I don't think there's ever a time to shut-up in politics, and anyone who says otherwise just doesn't like what you're saying.

[hobbit709]

30. Pretty much nailed it there.

[merrily]

32. Rightist posters have many common traits, regardless of voter registration.

When I first started posting, it was on a board where everyone was welcome to post and Bushco was Presidenting.

A Democrat pm'd me: "We discuss issues; they discuss us."

I knew instantly, she was talking about Democratic posters vs. Republican posters.

[Laelth]

57. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

65. No.

But then again I don't know any conservative Democrats. Who's been saying this?

[woo me with science]

76. [phone] It's getting glaringly, disturbingly predictable.

I wrote this during the 2012 corporate "shut up" campaign:

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:03 AM
woo me with science (28,997 posts)

It's time for this destructive meme about shutting up during elections to stop,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021488072

Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

once and for all.

We have in recent years witnessed a creeping, growing, extremely disturbing line of argument on political discussion boards about shutting up (On edit: Or restricting our participation to adulatory praise) during elections, as though it is a given that good citizens must silence themselves so as not to disturb the delicate strategies being implemented by our parties. Or that they should not ask questions, because they will upset these delicate plans...

This week, we actually heard this garbage move beyond political discussion boards and come from one of the the campaigns itself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594

This bid for silence is an affront to everything our representative political process is supposed to be about. It is a flagrantly antidemocratic demand for passivity by the governed, and it's an outrageous, dangerous meme that we need to stop dead in its tracks. Our entire political system is built around and depends upon government responsiveness to the people's voices. It's called representative government, and vigorous citizen participation in the political process is at the heart and the core of it. *Especially* during election seasons.

This new, outrageous claim that citizens should silence themselves during elections, or restrict themselves to praise, is a corruption of everything elections are supposed to be about in this country.

We have a serious problem of growing corporate control and authoritarianism in this country and in our two political parties. We are living in a time of "free speech zones," ....as though our entire country should not be a zone for free speech....and assaults on peaceful protesters.

It is well past time that the people of America speak out clearly and remind our politicians on both sides that they work for us....not the other way around.

So the next time someone tells you that you need to be quiet or obediently restrict your commentary to praise because it is election season, let them know in no uncertain terms they have it exactly backwards. The very health and survival of our representative government depends on our willingness to speak out and make clear what we expect from our elected representatives. Our power and our responsibility are in our voices....*especially* during elections.

128 Recs

[merrily]

33. You realize, if Republicans take over the Senate Tuesday, it will be solely because of this OP.

[Phlem]

36. Yea I know.

It's not like there was a glaring problem to begin with anyway. I'm sorry to be the cause of any losses the Democrats might suffer through this election. It was ALL ME!

[U4ikLefty]

62. ...or the OP made the election so close they were able to steal it

[merrily]

63. That is downright ludicrous. See Reply 40.

[U4ikLefty]

66. I was just riffing on the Nader excuse.

[merrily]

67. Ah, apologies. Given the other posts on this thread, it's hard to differentiate between a riff and

posts that are so laughable precisely because they are not riffs.

[U4ikLefty]

69. no prob, it was a pretty random joke

[merrily]

70. It was a fine joke. I just could not easily tell it apart from the serious memes.

Now, I'm off to get some sleep. Thanks for ending Halloween on a light note. I needed that.

[LittleBlue]

34. Something tells me the groundwork is being laid for a scapegoat

People sense we're going to lose big. Can't have the party or its policies criticized, can we? So the groundwork is being laid to blame those who are turned off by third way policies.

[merrily]

48. Much like 2010, BUT:

President Harry S. Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, May 17, 1952

It is a real pleasure to speak before the national convention of the ADA--Americans for Democratic Action.

The ADA was set up in January 1947. Those were dark days for the liberal forces in America. But you people had the courage to take up the fight and go forward. You dedicated yourselves to fight for progress and against reaction--against reaction of the right and against reaction of the left.


(much material omitted)



Now, we can always rely on the Republicans to help us in an election year, but we can't count on them to do the whole job for us. We have got to go out and do some of it ourselves, if we expect to win.

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.

More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.

The rights and the welfare of millions of Americans are involved in the pledges made in the Democratic platform of 1948 and in the program of this administration. And those rights and interests must not be betrayed.

more at http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296

Historians now rank Truman among the nation's best Presidents.

http://millercenter.org/president/truman/essays/biography/print

[pampango]

37. I think we all want to see Democrats beat republicans; liberal Democrats to beat conservative ones;

How and where you draw the line between supporting the party and supporting principles is a tough call. Few of us want republicans to control the government. Most of us naturally believe that the party will do best if it adheres to the principles that we believe in. Few think that the things they believe in are so bad that they will lose an election.

[merrily]

42. In my mind, there is no tough call between supporting the party and supporting principles.

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I am never voting against the 90%. I am never voting against unions (barring some bizarre change in unions). Etc.

The tough call is how I best support principles. I know it's not by voting Republican.

Is it by voting Democratic, no matter what, or is it by voting for another party?

Usually, I come down to, we need an entirely different system, but how likely is that, in the real world?

And that is the perennial dilemma of the LOTE voter.

If there is ever any question at all of helping a Republican win--not often an issue in my county--I am going to be a LOTE voter.

But posts a few days before election day? pffft. Can we please be real?

ETA: I strongly disagree that we all want to see liberal Democrats beat conservative Democrats. I think many pay lip service to wanting that, but don't really want that at all.

[F4lconF16]

54. +1

I think this is an excellent summary of my position. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to figure out where I'm drawing my line, yet If we continue pulling to the right, there will be a point where I can no longer in good concience vote Democratic, but when that will be is going to be the hard part... Do we wait until all dems are reaganites? Do we wait until they're as bad as bush? Do we wait until they're as bad as the modern right wing? When on this endless slippery slope of lesser evils do we say that enough is enough?

I'm not optimistic--when climate change and overpopulation really kick in, the lesser of two evils isn't going to be good enough. It needs to change, and now. For now I will vote to keep the republicans out--too many people will hurt even worse if I don't. But eventually there will be enough people hurting badly enough under the "lesser evil" that it will have to come crashing down.


And yeah, the idea that some posts online are going to keep someone from voting is ridiculous. If someone's that weak brained, they're already voting for the conservatives.

[merrily]

68. Posts on this board don't even convince a Third Way supporter to go traditional Democrat or vice

versa. A lot of people labor under the delusion that posting on a message board is activism. It isn't. More like alternating between preaching to the converted or pissing in the wind. It's a pastime, if you enjoy it. Or if you're a masochist.

[Youdontwantthetruth]

43. The only 'Dividing" is being done by the 3rd way, neo-liberals in the Democratic Party

[merrily]

46. Maybe, but they are in control of the party.

The last several Democratic nominees have been Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama, all endorsed by the DLC, Clinton and Gore having been founding members, Kerry having been a founding member of the Senate New Democrat Caucus and Obama coming out as a New Democrat some time after he was already in the White House. The last two heads of the DNC have been New Democrats, Kaine and Wasserman-Shultz.

In the House, the Progressive Caucus numbered about 100 in 2006 and has dwindled since. The Senate never even had a Progressive Caucus, only a New Democrat Caucus. In the Senate, Sherrod Brown, Sanders, who's not even technically a Democrat, and Warren seem populist and not third way-ish. Who else?


Reminds me of the Great Schism. In theory, all of Christendom was unified. Then, also in theory, the group that came to be called Catholics veered from the way things had always been in unified Christendom. The group that came to be called Orthodox wanted things to stay the same.

Over time, the Catholics were far more numerous, far richer, far more powerful and far more able to attract new members. The Orthodox have the perhaps now cold comfort of being most like the original Christians, but they are marginalized in comparison with the Catholics.

(Very oversimplified and broad brush, but I am trying to make a political point, not a religious one.)

On the other hand, a lot of groups splintered off from the Catholics and the evangelicals now have the Catholics looking over their shoulder.

So, who knows?

[Youdontwantthetruth]

47. I look at it this way, the Democratic Party is moving futher and futher to the right

and does not represent the things I believe in much anymore.

if the party picks yet another third way corporate hack, good bye Democratic Party for me,.

Why support an organization that does not represent and support what I believe in?

[merrily]

49. I feel your pain. The system does not give us good alternatives.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025740239#post42

[Orsino]

84. Specifically, the division is being done by money. n/t

[JoePhilly]

50. Encouraging people to vote straight D definitiely divides the party!!!!!!!!

Or so I'm now hearing.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

55. Sounds like it.

Better a right wing Republican get elected than a moderate Democrat according to some on this board.

[merrily]

59. I never saw anyone on this board say that, except in posts like your own Reply 55.

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 02:07 AM - Edit history (1)

By that I mean the kind of posts that, like your Reply 55 try to pretend that traditional Democrats and liberal Democrats are somehow aligned or associated with Republicans. There is less than no truth to that.

If any group of Democrats is somehow aligned with Republicans, that group would be the New Democrats, both those in office and their unconditional supporters, not traditional Democrats or liberal Democrats.

Our current New Democrat President did say that, in the 1980's (when Raygun was head of the Republican Party), he (Obama) would have been considered a moderate Republican.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080

Like Hillary, I take Obama at his word.

Moreover, when Obama and Hillary were running against each other in 2008, each of them put Ronald Reagan on his/her list of ten best American Presidents ever. That's very interesting, since no sane, respectable historian ever knocks Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and Truman off that list. So, only five slots are open--and, for Hillary, only four. Yet New Democrats Obama and Hillary both used one of the few remaining slots to exalt Reagan.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

92. I'm so sorry

I should have used the sarcasm tag. That's what my comment was.

[merrily]

58. The OP said he voted straight D and is not encouraging anyone to vote anything else.

[JoePhilly]

72. The OP does not say that.

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

The author of the OP later says he did, not in the OP to which I respond.

And from what I can tell the op didn't encourage others to do so, which is what us evil moderate Dems do all the time.

Cause we're trying to divide the party and all.

[Louisiana1976]

52. Why are 3rd Way policies and positions described as "neoliberal?" They're conservative--

seems a better description for them would be "neoconservative."

[merrily]

61. Maybe simply "conservative."

Recently, a DUer explained to me that "neoliberal" is about a combination of money issues and cultural issues, while "neoconservative: refers to international matters--as in the 2003 PNAC letter urging Bush to invade Iraq.

Back in the day, the isolationists were mostly rightist conservatives, even as to WWII. So the warmongers are supposedly the new kind of conservative, aka neoconservative.

Thing is, though, the lines are just not that clear. Neoliberals supported the invasion of Iraq, right along with the neocons. The DLC supported it, a co-founder of the DLC and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute signed the PNAC letter, and Hillary Clinton urged her fellow Senators to vote to authorize the invasion. So, so much for the line between the two.

But, of course, prior to the Bubba and beyond era in the Democratic Party who were running for office were not about to call themselves conservatives. And Presidents like Truman and John F Kennedy had praised liberals lavishly. So, we got "neoliberals,' which, in my opinion is just a one-word huge lie. They are conservadems on steroids--just not on social issues. So, why not call them what they are? Conservatives who run as Democrats.

[Phlem]

85. [phone]

Thanks merrily.

[maced666]

60. This is like keystone cops bumping in to one another.

For six years we didn't have this problem. What happened.

[baldguy]

73. If the Republicans win as a result, yes.

Republicans will never support progressive policies, and do everything they can to roll back the gains that have been made in the past. They are the barbarians at the gate. They cannot be allowed to win.

[Phlem]

74. Then why don't we push back as much as they do?

Instead we reach across the isle only to get punched in the face. I think we've Discovered at this point that bipartisanship is only on their terms.

[MineralMan]

77. How about encouraging people to go vote instead of this?

You can resume your negativity and agitprop on Wednesday. How's that sound?

[Phlem]

78. ....

My negativity? Wow how lost are you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5744786

[MineralMan]

80. On election day, any Democratic candidate is far preferable to

any Republican candidate. The time to select candidates is before the primary elections, not three days before an election.

Right not, Democrats of all types need to be voting for Democrats. We can duke it out after the election. The alternative is Republicans in control. That's never a good thing.

You want better candidates? You can start working toward that goal starting on Wednesday, November 5, 2014. I suggest that you start in your own state and local districts.

Right now, the ballots are all printed. Encourage Democrats to go to the polls and vote. Then, on Wednesday, you can return to your normal messaging.

You posted a link to another post by yourself, so here's a link to a post of mine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025744699

[MineralMan]

82. What's a "#*@!"?

I'm making a suggestion that you wait a few days before resuming your disparagement. That's all.

I have no authority to tell you to do anything on DU. Truly.

[Phlem]

83. sure, sure.

That's what you said.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. Now? That's what is being sold 24/7/365.

Unless you accept any right wing position sold by somebody who put a (D) after their name, you're 'divisive'.

[brooklynite]

89. No, only when you then insist you'll "never vote for..." the Third Way neocon of your choice....

...or insist that we only nominate "real Democrats" for races in conservative districts where they can't win.

[Rex]

91. 3rd Wayers are sadly our equivalent to the Tea Party.

Thankfully they are not in charge of anything, but just make a lot of noise about hating progressives or make slight jabs at progressives. Best to ignore them, they don't seem to be worth much since all they do is complain.