I want to see the Democratic Party make a clear break from the Republican Party.

[kentuck]

There needs to be a clear distinction.

I want to see the Democratic Party that is not afraid of saying we need to raise taxes on the very wealthy.

I want to see a Democratic Party that is brave enough to say no to "war" and the Defense budget.

I want to see a Democratic Party that stands up for the homeless, the jobless, and the poor and not just the "middle class".

I want to see a Democratic Party that is not married to Wall Street and does not defend trade treaties that mostly benefit the corporations.

I want to see a Democratic Party that stands for justice for all our citizens and speaks out loudly against police brutality and the militarization of our police forces.

I want to see a Democratic Party that stands against the agenda of the right-wing GOP and has some principles that they will not compromise. A good rule for them to follow is: If the GOP is for it, then we are against it. That will usually keep us on the right track.

I want to see a Democratic Party that defends the need for "government" and does not agree with the GOP that government is evil. I want a Party that works for the many, not just the few.

[sadoldgirl]

1. Very good, may I add one?

I want to see a Democratic Party that will try to take care of the planet.

[kentuck]

2. Absolutely!

We should protect our planet.

[noiretextatique]

4. and stand up for all people

including black men. and stop ignoring tough subjects, like race, to attract bigots.

[Enthusiast]

22. Me too!

[billhicks76]

52. Here's A Start...

Drop Bush family confidant and Vichey Democrat, Hillary Clinton, like a sandbag from a balloon and watch as we float into a better future.

[navarth]

57. Hey Bill

It's spelled Vichy. Just an FYI among friends. Other than that I can find no fault in your statement.

[billhicks76]

102. I Knew It!!!

Thanks

[Heather Kube]

99. Oh, come on! Nobody is more pro-choice and pro-women than Hillary.

For fuck's sake, open your eyes.

[billhicks76]

103. Sorry

But war, killing, mass incarceration, banker theft, racism and spying are big issues too. She's as repulsive as they get and a Bush Sr supported reproductive rights too and I think he's the worst thing that ever happened to this country.

[Autumn]

3. So do I. I want a Democrat who will reach across the aisle

and slap the holy fucking shit out of any republican who wants any of those things. Unfortunately we keep voting for the democrats who are in agreement with the republicans on many of those things because the republicans are so very bad and will do those very things if they get elected and so on.

[noiretextatique]

5. +1000

right on!!!!!

[on point]

90. 1000+. I want a dem that will continuously fight delusions with reality

And compromise with obvious bad choices that erode this country

[rhett o rick]

95. Very well stated. nm

[grahamhgreen]

6. That's the party that would get my money again!

[zeemike]

34. The unfortunate part is that they no longer need our money.

They go where the big bucks are...Wall Street and the industry part of the MIC...and that money comes from our taxes in the form of tax breaks for the 1% and corporate wealfare...so we pay for it anyway.
Politics like much of our government has been privatized.

[grahamhgreen]

43. One look at the last election and i'd say they need our money and support!

[dfgrbac]

85. Democrats would have won if...

If Citizens United did not pour money into opposing ads! We could not combat that landslide.

[CrispyQ]

86. Maybe they wouldn't need corporate money if they would fight for the working class.

Although Citizen's United has tipped the playing field horribly in the corpo's favor.

I haven't sent money to a candidate since 2008, but that would change if the dems would fight for liberal policies, not just give them lip service.

I thought it was telling that they shut down Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. I thought it was successful & shutting it down sent me the message that they don't want grassroots involvement in their corporate plan.

Here's an interesting article on it from 2013.

Looking Back at Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy
http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-democrat-howard-deans-fifty-state-strategy.html

snip...

When former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean became chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in early 2005, one of his main efforts was to undertake a "50-state strategy," a bid to build up party infrastructure and candidate recruitment at every level and in every state -- even in solidly Republican bastions.

"We strengthened the parties so sitting governors could find good candidates" for offices high and low, Dean said. "That's much easier to do from Topeka than it is from Washington."

snip...

Still, Dean said he continues to believe that every state, no matter how unfriendly to his party, deserves to have a basic level of institutional, financial, technological and personnel support, which can be "relatively inexpensive."

"It would be a terrible mistake to leave even one state out of a basic package of training, IT and staffing," he said. "I don't advocate putting a zillion dollars into Alaska, but I do advocate having a competent, well-run Democratic Party in place, because you never know where lightning is going to strike."

[zeemike]

89. I could not agree more.

Dean represented a grass roots movement and that had to be stopped if the corporatist were to stay in power.

[on point]

91. 50 state strategy also fought against repuke framing and lies

Anything less is surrender to the puke BS

[jwirr]

7. I agree but I have lived in Iowa and Nebraska. What do we do about states that will not vote for

anyone with this agenda? Are there enough blue states to be able to control congress without states like the two I lived in?

Things were so bad back then that all local offices were determined at the local rethug primary. If you were not registered in said party you had no say. It was just about as bad when electing state government and congressional representatives to DC.

It was a little better with the Senate and Governor. They sometimes could go either way. One of the really interesting facts is how little these two states have gone Democratic in the presidential election. Back then I think there was only one time Iowa had ever voted Democratic and that was in FDRs fourth term. In modern times I do not know what they are doing.

Without holding a majority in the branches of Congress we are at a real disadvantage. How do we work around that if those states will not vote for our values?

[kentuck]

12. I want to see a Democratic Party that believes in its principles...

...even in states like Nebraska and Iowa. We will never make progress in any of those state if we act like Republicans in order to win an election. We need to believe in what we stand for.

[jwirr]

16. At the time I left Iowa they were beginning to work on building a party. Today the area I lived in

has Steve King as a representative. I left in 1980.

[RiverLover]

107. + a MILLION!!!!!!!! nt

[olddots]

8. I want a Democratic party that creates a Peace Department

Don't laugh which I'm sure some of you will .

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. I'm not laughing.

[Maedhros]

11. I agree 100% with the sentiment.

However, as a famous circus clown once said, "Money trumps peace."

[Enthusiast]

21. +1

[RufusTFirefly]

39. +1 for a Department of Peace!

There are two main groups who laugh at this: 1) People who benefit from the largesse of the MIC do so in order to marginalize the idea before it catches on. 2) Many other people who laugh do so nervously because the idea seems bizarre to them, as bizarre as the notion of a TV program that actually covers labor issues as a modest counterbalance to the dozens of shows (heck, networks!) that cover business issues. Most people find the idea inconceivable. Our world has grown so warped that we have trouble realizing just how restrictive our horizons have become.

A Department of Peace could address conflict resolution, not just on the international level but domestically as well. We could use some help from the Department of Peace in Ferguson, for example.

Violence represents a profound failure of creativity. Instead of sparking jingoism and saber-rattling, it should elicit sadness and shame.

It means we've been confronted with a challenging problem and rather than arriving at a constructive way to resolve it, we've simply given up.

[librechik]

71. I love everything in this thread

let's take over our own party and make it live again.

[merrily]

79. It used to be the War Department. The name change to D of D was a huge lie and a signal that,

whether we were at war or peace, we were going to spend big bucks on war always and forever.

And, of course, now we are in a never-ending faux war against terror, which "war" scares me more than Al Q'aeeda ever has.

[2banon]

10. Amen Brothers and Sisters! Amen!

[Louisiana1976]

13. I agree 100%. Besides what you said I want a Democratic Party that stands for single payer,

free child care for working mothers, tuition-free colleges and universities coupled with loan forgiveness for those who have had to take out student loans, and a $20 per hour minimum wage.

[Enthusiast]

20. +1 an entire shit load.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I want a Democratic Party that requires little or no nose-holding to vote for.

And, I AM willing to compromise on some things to some extent. But, when the nose-holding becomes agonizing I'm willing to turn to 3rd parties or the write-in line.

[Phlem]

15. if I could,

completely abandoning 3rd way policies and tossing them out, completely.

Can we have an AMEN!

[Enthusiast]

19. AMEN here!

[MissDeeds]

26. Amen friend

I could not agree more.

[ReRe]

61. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennn !!!!!!!!!!!!!! wn/t

wn/t = who needs text?

[rurallib]

17. If I may - maybe not one of the burning issues

but I would so love a Democratic Party that stood for breaking up the corporate strangle hold on the media so we could have a well informed citizenry - or at least the access to information that is not controlled.

[Enthusiast]

18. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Way to go, kentuck!

[wiggs]

23. Good post. Not unreasonable requests. A few years ago, these were centrist ideas. nt

[BlueJac]

24. I am with you for sure.........

it is past time to be a real Democrat in stead of a across the aisle kind of fool, your hand always gets bitten off!!!!!!!!

[MaggieD]

25. I agree +1000

[MissDeeds]

27. +10000

K&R

[delrem]

28. "If you can't beat them, join them" is a loser's slogan in politics.

It's a loser's slogan whether or not the person chanting it claims to be "reality based", or whatever other accompaniment designed to oil it down.

Just take a look at the lengths that the masters of such "reality based" on-the-take politicians go to, to ensure that their "reality" is the only game in town:

http://www.thenation.com/article/191529/how-david-brock-built-empire-put-hillary-white-house

"David Brock, the conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder...."

COME ON, PEOPLE! WTF is the term 'progressive' *doing* in that sentence? Hint, it has nothing to do with truth.

This is like the Robert Kagan Victoria Nuland neocon PNAC team turned "liberal interventionists" when they discovered the opportunity for personal advancement by joining up with Hillary, and now Kerry. COME ON, PEOPLE, WTF do you think you're *doing*, allowing this to happen in your name? Just what???

[jtuck004]

30. "If you can't join 'em, beat 'em." <- I have always liked that one much better.

[jtuck004]

29. Don't hold your breath. n/t

[TheNutcracker]

31. Don't hold your breathe.....they knew they would lose the senate and didn't even TRY

[Andy823]

32. So who are these people?

Have you anyone in mind that fits this list? I would agree with what you posted, but how do we find such candidates and how do we know that they really mean what they say? Usually politicians make all kinds of promises but once in office it become harder to carry those promises out without help from others.

[obxhead]

33. And I will not support any candidate that doesn't proselytize these bullet points.

Go ahead, vote for Hillary in the primary.

She does not believe a single one of the things listed here, she will not be supported by this family.

If you're a Democrat, help find a Democrat to run!

[Scuba]

35. + another 1,000

[INdemo]

36. The money is too damn good and

The corporate take over of Washington cannot be reversed.

We could start by cleaning house within the DNC though.

I would like to know why Debbie Wasserman Schultz still has a job at the DNC

[CK_John]

47. Easy, nobody else want it or will take it. It's a no win job.

[AlbertCat]

37. Very good

But you won't see it on the TV... even if it exists.

[Doctor_J]

38. Looks like you picked the wrong day to post this fantasy

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)...praised Obama's remarks (on the TPP)

[Myrina]

40. yes, please. and now.

N/T

[yortsed snacilbuper]

41. Amen,

brother!

[tclambert]

42. The Preamble of the Constitution lays out a pretty good case for needing government.

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I typed that out from memory, so I may not have all the weird capitalization right, but I think I got all six important reasons they gave for forming a strong central government. They gave these reasons, and wrote the whole Constitution, precisely because our brand new nation was in danger of failing under The Articles of Confederation. They had the wisdom to leave these reasons a little vague, to allow future generations to interpret the details as changing circumstances required, yet explaining the ideal goals for government in pretty understandable terms.

[Jake2413]

44. YES.....thank you

[peoli]

45. Sounds like you are looking for The Green Party.

[Buenaventura]

60. Bravo - my thought exactly! n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

46. We have to get rid of nearly all of the current ones

AND their money source before that will be possible.

[truebrit71]

48. So that rules out a Hillary Presidency completely...

... which is not a bad thing imho...

[Doctor_J]

83. Yes, our 2016 nominee already promised to be more cordial to the Repukes than the president is

Being a Dem is really a tough slog these days

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. Especially since the "middle class" the Dems talk about know what IBM traded for this morning.

[Shoonra]

50. But the Dems bailed in the election campaign

Yes, I agree with you about taxing the rich and all that ... but the majority of Dem officer-seekers in the 2014 campaigns bailed on Obama, avoided appearing with him, even denounced him in their Party-subsidized advertising. And their reward for deserting the President? Most of them lost anyway.

[Marr]

51. That party would do very well. /nt

[valerief]

53. We need a Mortals Party. We already have an Immortals Party. That's the Corporate Party that

protects immortals at all costs, easily at the expense of mortals. We need this reversed.

[OldRedneck]

54. My ideal presidential candidate

I have a dream. In my dream, we Democrats will nominate a presidential candidate who fits this description.

First, our candidate will level with us about who owns him/her. It costs a zillion $$$ to run for president, the $$$ must come from somewhere and I want to know who has bought the candidate.

Second, I want the candidate to promise that in the first six month's of his/her administration, the following legislation will be introduced and s/he will fight to pass it:
-- Raise the minimum wage to $15/hr;
-- Abolish the limit on income on which social security tax is paid;
-- Rewrite the Affordable Care Act to establish national health insurance -- Medicare for All;
-- Put teeth into Dodd-Frank and re-institute Glass-Stegall;
-- Cut the Pentagon budget by at least 10 percent and fire at least 90 percent of the contractors;
-- Institute a huge, nationwide infrastructure rebuild/repair program;
-- Cancel all student debt and establish a federal student loan program with repayment forgiven for those who go into public service;
-- Enact federal laws that scrap state restrictions on access to abortion;
-- Establish federal voter registration and ID requirements, move election day to the weekend, and require employers to provide time off work to vote.

Third, I want the candidate to announce early in the campaign certain of his/her Cabinet choices. Here's what I want:
-- An Attorney General who will go to Wall Street with a truckload of handcuffs and orange jump suits and drag the banksters, cuffed and stuffed, out of the executive suites.
-- A Sec of Treasury to be the CEO of a local community bank whose career has been dealing with mom-and-pop businesses, homeowners, and real people -- and who wouldn't know a derivative if one bit him in the ass.
-- A Sec of Labor who actually LABORED for a living.


I gotta stop drinking so late at night.

[on point]

106. That's an agenda (and a candidate) I could support wholeheartedly!

[RiverLover]

108. No, no, don't stop drinking!! That was great.

jk about the drinking though.

[JEB]

55. Hell yes. That's the stuff.

[nikto]

56. What a scary, radical idea

You mean, actually have 2 (two) different political parties?
Dear God...why?

Who will stand up for defenseless Wall St/Big Corporations/War Lobby?

1 party is not sufficient for these precious and delicate institutions' enormous needs,
and they will suffer horribly and be taken advantage of
by greedy poor children and selfish old people on fixed-pensions
and mean, nasty crippled people in fancy motorized wheelchairs and stuff.

Both parties will be needed to defend the righteous Makers against the greedy masses of Takers.

[navarth]

58. kicking because I agree. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

59. k&r. n/t

[ReRe]

62. Can I borrow this?

It's a list of all I want for Christmas. Thanks kentuck!

[Enthusiast]

63. Got two new ones here.

I want to see a Democratic Party that will create a new Glass—Steagal Act.

I want to see a Democratic Party that would create a new Fairness Doctrine.

I want to see a Democratic Party that does not consider the above to be extreme measures.

[RiverLover]

64. +1000!!! nt

[ctsnowman]

65. K & R

[99Forever]

66. Good luck with that.

Both major parties are run by the same people.

Pitchfork time.

[merrily]

82. +1

But, I am not hopeful about the pitchforks, either.

[polichick]

92. True.

[raouldukelives]

67. K&R

I'm tired of playing nice with bullies, with the biggest group of ignorant bigots this country can produce as well as those who make sure they are funded to the gills.

[myrna minx]

68. K&R nt

[Vinca]

69. Let me give you an "amen."

LOL - as an atheist I don't get to say that much.

[Hotler]

70. Good luck with that.

Not going to happen until we take to the streets by the tens of thousands, until we start use the power of our pocket books an wallets (the biggest weapon the little people have) and stop spend money except for just the essentials, basically shut this country down for about 8-10 months. If the repugs can shut this country down so can we.

[d_b]

72. How lovely it would be

[B Calm]

73. I want to see democratic candidates to stop distancing themselves from the party

when they are running for office. I don't care how damn red the state is! It's either you are a democratic pol or you are not a democratic pol. Stop the middle of the road bullshit, thinking you might pick up a few votes from the right! All it does is alienate the democrat voters to stay home on election day.

[Xyzse]

74. I'd love to see that.

[randr]

75. I want to see a Democratic Contract with America!!!!

[kentuck]

77. That's an interesting idea!

With a lot of merit, I think.

[randr]

81. Been waiting years for one Democrat to stand up to the ridiculous Republican contract

[Orsino]

76. What you really want is a break from Big Money.

That's what's making the parties sound so wrong in such similar ways.

[liberal_at_heart]

78. +1. Great OP kentuck.

[lonestarnot]

80. Absolutely!

[merrily]

84. So would most Democrats who are awake to the change in the Party.

But, I think we are destined to be disappointed, at least in the near term.

I think they will change the way they speak, if anything, not what they do. The may also ramp up the kabuki, so it appears more and more that Democrats are trying their best, but the mean ole Republicans--who are supposedly so much dumber than Democrats--just keep foiling them. (They already do a lot of that, but they may ramp up.)

Those in the low info population will continue to be blissfully unaware that the Party changed. The gullible will continue to believe the kabuki. The shills will continue to try to peddle it.

[jalan48]

87. Media

Without a media outlet dedicated to Progressive news the chances are slim of a Progressive movement succeeding in this country. The Conservatives, both main stream and radical, have the major news networks plus FOX hawking their propaganda 24/7. Unfortunately, the average American isn't smart enough to grasp the cruel irony that conservatives are making his/her life worse though their policies that favor the 1%. How do we develop a major Progressive media outlet? That is the biggest challenge I think.

[The CCC]

88. I want to see the Democratic Party make a clear break from the Republican Party.

The Democrats haven't stood up for the middle class for a long time now. Ronald Reagan fired PATCO, but the neither the Democratic Party or the workers unions stood up for PATCO.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. Of course PATCO had endorsed Reagan over Carter, one of only 4 AFL-CIO unions to do so.

The rest had in fact stood up for PATCO and all Unions in opposing Ronald Reagan. PATCO had stood with the Union busters.

[usafvet65]

93. One thing I know for sure….

if you get your wish. HELL HAS FROZEN OVER.

[Progressive dog]

94. I want to see an electorate that understands

that there is a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans.

[rhett o rick]

96. The problem is that the electorate understands the opposite. When our Democratic President

rams thru the TPP, he and some Democrats will be high-fiving the Republicans. The DEmocratic administration, HRC and the REpublicans see eye to eye on the Patriot Act, fracking, domestic spying, drone killing, expansion of war in the Middle EAst.

There is a difference but it isn't a Democratic / Republican difference. It's a grassroots Democrats plus progressive Democratic representatives (and Sen Sanders); and the Third Way Democrats plus their Republican brethren.

We need to kick the Third Way pseudo-Democrats back across the aisle where they belong.

[Progressive dog]

97. If you disagree with both sides,

it doesn't make them the same. It just means you don't agree with either.

[rhett o rick]

104. I am not sure who disagrees with both sides. You were disparaging the electorate for

being confused and I explained why. Some Democrats look a lot like some Republicans. Not all Democrats but some. You should recognize the confusion when both the DEmocrat and Republican support Free Trade and fracking.

We must get the message out that there are good Democrats out there that support the 99%.

[Progressive dog]

105. No I wasn't disparaging the electorate,

I was disparaging those who think that the electorate is confused about the difference between Democrats and Republicans. It is incontestable that a large majority of Democrats continue to support the President, in spite of TPP and fracking.
I'm not the one who believes that he speaks for the 99%.

[rhett o rick]

109. So let's go back to what you said, "I want to see an electorate that understands that there is a

clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans." You want an electorate that agrees with you that it's as simple as "Democrats Good - Republicans bad". When the electorate sees that on issues dealing with Free Trade, fracking, Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention, Medicare for all, that the President stands side by side with the Republicans, they don't see the difference you see.

When a Democratic President nominates and appoints all conservatives, gives Wall Street crime a pass, persecutes medical marijuana dispensers, forgives war crimes, stonewalls reports of torture, it is very apparent that there is little difference between conservative Democrats and Conservative Republicans.

There are progressive Democrats and they differ from Republicans (and Conservative DEmocrats).

To say that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad is too simplified.

[Progressive dog]

111. You imagine that 99% of the electorate subscribes to

your political beliefs, and then claim that somehow the people who disagree with you keep getting elected. You seem to lack any understanding of how democracies work. It must astound you that the President is still supported by a vast majority of Democrats.
Parties represent their members, nowadays they even have primaries. Their views are not a religion, there is no Democratic canon law. Their views can even change over time as society changes.

[rhett o rick]

112. It was you that wanted to educate the electorate on the difference between Democrats and

Republicans. I agree we need to educate the electorate but we should do so by addressing their difficulty in recognizing the differences within the Democratic Party. You continue to ignore the fact that there is a major split in the Democratic Party. There is the Conservative Wing that dances with the Republicans and supports Corp-America, and the Progressive Wing that supports the 99%.

The meme that all Democrats are good is a fallacy.

[Progressive dog]

113. I never said educate, don't continue to put entire philosophies in my mouth.

Your straw men don't rise above the level of grass clipping men. I also didn't say, imply, or even hint at "All Democrats are good.

[rhett o rick]

114. You argue in circles and then go after me. "Your straw men don't rise above the level of grass

clipping men." Really? I am tired of your tries at making it personal. I don't mind discussing/arguing with people that honestly want to argue, but I don't have time for those that want to make it personal. You will be happy to know that you've made my short ignore list of very special people. Go find someone else to disparage.

[Progressive dog]

115. Well good for you,

you probably should put me on ignore. I'd appreciate it.

[staggerleem]

98. Then I imagine that the LAST thing you want ...

... is to see a list of reasons why you won't get what you want, e. g.:

The Supreme Court 's decisions in McCutcheon & Citizens United have enforced the concept that representatives are mainly responsible to their DONORS, not their Constituents, and running on taxing the wealthy invites the launch of MASSIVE money-bombs against you.

The corporate media and their pals in the MIC will paint anyone who speaks of defense cuts as unpatriotic, "soft" on terrorism, etc.

The homeless, the jobless and the poor are essentially already disenfranchised - why run on a platform to support those LEAST likely to vote?

Need I remind you what Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks? - "'Cuz that's where the MONEY is!" My Senators are married to Wall Street for the same reason.

Your next point is neatly covered by my 2nd & 3rd points, above.

Regarding your last 2 points, much of this nation's population still regard Ronald Reagan as a saint. The brainwashed masses are completely resistant to the truth of those statements.

Essentially, I really do want the same things that you do, kentuck. And I do NOT believe for a minute that any of the reasons I've stated above are GOOD reasons. The REAL challenge of our times is to recruit more citizens into the REALITY-BASED community ... all the rest will follow from that. I sure do wish I knew how to pull THAT trick off!

[kentuck]

101. If we don't change our thinking...

...then we are truly doomed as a Party.

[pansypoo53219]

110. a clean break w/ WALL STREET + goldman SUX.