Democrats used to stand for principles

[whereisjustice]

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 02:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Here are a few classic Democratic party principles. I'm listing a few of them here because I believe younger Americans have no idea of the concessions and progress that some of us worked to win before a horrible transformation of the Democratic Party occurred during the 1980s.

Classic Democratic Values and Principles

Justice and equality.

Environmental protection and research and development into safer energy sources.

Deescalation of our aggressive and wasteful military presence.

American jobs in ALL trades, education, engineering, plumbing, carpentry, machining, etc.

Education. Not just college, but REAL education - learning a trade or skill that fits the individual so that they can make positive contributions to the development of the country.

Regulating corporations so that they don't harm defenseless citizens.

Paying wealth based taxes based on the resources (natural, financial and human) you consumed to obtain your wealth.

Safeguarding the constitutional protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

New Democratic Party Principles

Amnesty for and defense of torture.

NSA spying and anti-privacy legislation for ordinary citizens. Private, non-archival communications for high level public officials conducting Government business

Amnesty for Wall Street crime.

Oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. Fracking. Genetically modified ingredients hidden in our food supply

Trade agreements sending millions of jobs to places with horrible human rights records - places abusive to women and children. Importing 100s of thousands of H1Bs from India.

Force feeding everyone into a narrow white collar education track based on perceived market value regardless of natural skills and abilities. Stigmatizing anyone without a "college" degree. Keep in mind that its the Ivy League educated fucks who've created the mess we have today , from "trickle down" to "inclusive capitalism", an effluent of abstract policies favoring rich over non-rich.

Privatization of schools, prisons, military. Standardized testing (and the associated corporate payola) as a national education backbone.

Finally, leaving it up to Wall Street to select our candidate for president.

When you get that fund raising email asking for cash, it isn't to advance and promote classic Democratic principles. It's to build up a financial war chest to fight and defend the principles of the New Democratic Party. Our presumed presidential nominee has been building a Defense Fund for years. She'll need it. The strategy has become with enough cash, you can win elections without annoying Wall Street banks with troublesome principles.

It takes a whole lot of extra cash and effort to convince people to vote for a party who advertises itself primarily as the lesser of two evils. In the old days, that work and effort used to be applied to advancing good public policies. Now we just bail water for the political elite who keep chipping away at the nation's moral foundations.

Hillary isn't our only option. That's simply what Wall Street is telling us over and over. They've said it enough that some people think it's true. But the fact is, they're promoting Hillary because they know she's a reliable advocate on behalf of Wall Street.

Let the rich take care of themselves. They don't need us to keep bailing them out.

We deserve our own candidate.

[MADem]

1. Principals run schools.

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)

Get off your behinds and find an alternative candidate, or ten if you'd like, instead of tearing down the one you don't happen to like.

If all you've got is negativity and naysaying, you've got...nothing.

Edit, following your OP edit: Good job correcting your spelling--it makes more sense now.

[whereisjustice]

4. Sounds like you are telling us to leave and vote for another political party. Is that what you think

is in the best interests of the nation?

[sabrina 1]

8. They apparently don't need the Left. So the Left has taken them at their word and started selecting

and supporting their OWN Democrats for election and reelection and WINNING. See the last two mid terms.

The Left has also worked to get Progressive Issues on local ballots across the country and won on every issue that was on a ballot, proving that we have been lied to that the country is NOT left leaning. It is. Building on those victories, the goal is to change Congress to reflect the voters, not Wall St, and in the next election more Republicans will be targeted for defeat and more Third Wayers will primaried with good Progressive candidates who will be supported by voters.

[malokvale77]

31. Sooner or later...

They will either join us or they will move to the Republican party where they have more in common.

Third Wayers do not belong in the Democratic party.

[merrily]

52. IMO, most Democratic politicians in office at this point are centrists.

Not only are they centrists, but they want more centrists elected.

[Adrahil]

49. Run candidates!

The proof is in the elections. Run candidates. It's that simple. If you are right, they will win primaries, and we can all vote for them in the generals.

[bvar22]

101. Really? That easy?

The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass

...and we were WINNING!

Guess what happened.

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!

Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.

Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?

Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the only answer was ridicule and insults.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

So what did the White House gain by Beating Down Labor and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults.
To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule of Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary

[Marr]

104. Yep-- every once in awhile the curtain has to be removed to save some

right-wing Democrat. It's foul, and impossible to forget-- and makes the strident calls for loyalty from self-described "centrists" all the more galling.

[Adrahil]

112. What's your alternative?

I see lots of hand-wringing and chest beating here, but in the end, a candidate must WIN ELECTIONS. Yes, it really is that simple.

I won't say it's not an up hill battle against more centrist or even center-right candidates with the support of the party apparatus. But in the end, VOTES count.

[bvar22]

114. Simple.

The National Democratic Party, nor ANY national fund raising arm of the Democratic Party
have absolutely NO business interfering with local Democratic Primaries.
Every time they do, it is to subvert the Will of the People.

[merrily]

133. Thank you. The meme that finding good candidates is my job is a fucking joke, anyway.

[brooklynite]

63. You've STARTED selecting and supporting your own Democrats?

Did you miss Civics class? Because that's been the system for the past century. You pick your candidates, other Democrats pick their candidates, and we see who gets the nomination. So far, I'd say your not doing very well in convincing voters that the left philosophy, however much voters may agree on issues, is where the candidates they like come from.

[sabrina 1]

72. Well, that's what we LEARNED. Who picked Christie for Governor of NJ, a BLUE STATE v the Dem

candidate? Over 60 Elected NJ Dems, endorsed AND voted for him.

I know that WE the base of the party sure didn't want Christie. We wanted Buono.

She was starved of financial support by her own party, with a lot of phony excuses.

Christie was very vulnerable at that time due to his mis-handling of Sandy.

But voters were told by DEMS that he was 'unbeatable' so may as well ENDORSE him.

Are they for real?

And he wasn't the ONLY Republican supported by the Dem leadership.

Sorry, I don't support Republicans or those who WANT them in office even if they have a 'd' after their names. Every NJ Dem who endorsed a Republican in a Blue State, is NOT a Dem in my view.

[brooklynite]

75. Buono was a bad candidate

...and I say that having met her.

[bvar22]

117. Same goes for Florida...or ANY state.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have been kicked to the curb in 2008.
The fact that she wasn't raises alot of nasty questions about the Party Leadership.

In 2008 Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to endorse these 3 Democrats
who had won their Primaries and had a chance to win Republican seats:

Miami-Dade Democratic Party Chair Joe Garcia

Former Hialeah Democratic Mayor Raul Martinez

Democratic businesswoman Annette Taddeo

All three had won their local Democratic Primaries, and were challenging Hard Core Republican incumbents with whom Wasserman-Schultz had become cozy.
Not only did the head of the DCCC Red to Blue Program REFUSE to endorse these Democratic challengers,
but she appeared in person at at least one (possibly more) Campaign/Fundraiser for their Republican opponents.



FL-18, FL-21, FL-25: Wasserman Schultz Wants Dem Challengers to Lose
by: James L.
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 7:15 PM EDT
<snip>

Sensing a shift in the political climate of the traditionally solid-GOP turf of the Miami area, Democrats have lined up three strong challengers -- Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, and businesswoman Annette Taddeo to take on Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, respectively.

While there is an enormous sense of excitement and optimism surrounding these candidacies, some Democratic lawmakers, including Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek, are all too eager to kneecap these Democratic challengers right out of the starting gate in the spirit of "comity" and "bipartisan cooperation" with their Republican colleagues:

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

"At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant," Wasserman Schultz said.

Now, you'd expect this kind of bullshit from a backbencher like Alcee Hastings, but you wouldn't expect this kind of behavior from the co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, which is the position that Wasserman Schultz currently holds. Apparently, Debbie did not get Rahm's memo about doing whatever it takes to win:

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1537

The bloggers also are furious with Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), who similarly refuses to endorse the Democratic challengers to the three Cuban American Republicans.

They are calling for Wasserman Schultz to step down from her leadership role at the DCCC. And they're not letting up, even after one Florida liberal blogger reported that the congresswoman seemed "frustrated" by the blogs and had asked to "please help get them off my back."

This prompted even harsher reaction from perhaps the most influential of the progressive political bloggers, Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. Kos, founder of Daily Kos, who wrote on his blog Wednesday: "On so many fronts, the Republicans are standing in the way of progress, on Iraq, SCHIP, health care, fiscal responsibility, corruption, civil liberties, and so on. Those three south Florida Republicans are part of that problem. And she's (Wasserman-Schultz) going to be 'frustrated' that people demand she do her job?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903410_3.html

Here are Kos comments on the Wasserman-Schultz betrayal of the Democratic Party:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/480511/-DCCC-Says-Uproar-Over-DWS-Recusal-Much-Ado-About-Nothing




A lot of time has passed since 2008, but I don't take these kinds of betrayals lightly.

bvar22
Cursed with a memory

"I want to thank Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for being an outstanding chair of our party. (Applause.) She is a great partner."--President Obama

With "partners" like this, we don't need Republicans!

[Oilwellian]

65. "Third Wayers will be primaried"

Yes indeed, we have been busy finding more liberal candidates. The Democratic Establishment is ignoring Donna Edwards who is challenging Van Hollen in a primary for Senator Mikulski's soon to be vacant seat. The Dem Establishment supports Van Hollen who famously admitted that he's open to cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, a standard GOP/New Dem talking point.

Rahm's bevvy of Blue Dogs are being decimated.

[MADem]

10. Obviously reading isn't your strong suit, either. It sounds like nothing of the sort.

Find your candidates from within the ranks of the party, and tout them, and go to work for them.

If all you can do is tear down existing candidates, rather than build up the ones you prefer, you've got nothing to show for yourself.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. Well, in Arkansas we found a great candidate for governor last year-- Bill Halter,

the former lieutenant governor. But guess what? The state party apparatchiks didn't even want him in the primary competing against their hand-selected guy, Mike Ross, and they forced Halter to bow out before the primary. And then their hand-picked candidate lost in the general election, by an embarrassing margin.

Please don't lecture us on "finding our candidates from within the ranks of the party", because the party often already has its mind made up about who it wants to support.

[MADem]

35. Well, you, and others like you, need to work your way up into the "fat cat" leadership.

How do you think those fat cats got where they are? They did stuff like work on campaigns, bundle money with houseparties, and do the grunt work of a political operative. They didn't sit around on DU whining that no one listens to them.

You can be a player, but it takes work. So yeah, I will "lecture" you and anyone else who thinks that griping is all that you need to do. You need to step up and work--and then they'll listen to you.

As for your candidate, if he could be so easily "forced" (without an offer of support for another office down the lane) out, maybe he's not such a strong candidate. How was he "forced?" Did they kidnap his kids? Put a gun to his head? Naaah. They didn't want to fund him--and they do oppo research, BTW, there could have been a big honking skeleton in his closet that you know nothing about--and they had good reasons for telling him "None of our money for YOU!" And he, apparently, didn't have the friends, resources or rolodex to pull together a pile of cash and make it work on his own.

It's not a simple process. It would be nice if it were, but it ain't. CITIZENS UNITED has put the dollar bill in the game, and like it or not, that IS a factor and it's not changing in time for the next election cycle.

[Art_from_Ark]

42. You should take this up with my fellow Arkansan,

Sinkingfeeling, who actually attended a meeting with Halter and donated to his nascent gubernatorial campaign, only to see the rug pulled out from under him.

The party doesn't care if someone from the hoi polloi acts as token opposition to an entrenched incumbent (good luck getting more than superficial backing from the party), but in races that might be competitive, they want their candidate. It's like when Halter was running in a competitive primary against Blanche Lincoln, and Bill Clinton and even Obama campaigned against him.

And don't get me started on the 60+ so-called "Democrats" in New Jersey who pledged their support for "George Washington Bridge" Christie over their own party's gubernatorial candidate

[MADem]

43. My point still stands. If your guy had critical mass, they couldn't pull any rug out from under him

and in fact, they'd have to play ball. A candidate has to have a crew, a visible and enthusiastic following, and -- again, I don't make the rules -- an all important donor list. If he (or she) can demonstrate the ability to GOTV and to fill the coffers, it's off to the races. No one can stop 'em. Thing is, though, a lot of donors are already committed to a favorite, and if there's an incumbent in the mix, they're going to have to be pissed at the incumbent, specifically, to switch horses like that.

Incumbency, mind you, is another thing altogether. Incumbents are harder to shift than dried bloodstains. Name recognition is a huge piece of the pie.

But if a new potential candidate is thought to be a possibility, the party will do oppo research on them and if the vetting digs up something squirrelly, it's hot potato time. They'll dump 'em for someone new. They don't want to spend party money on an unknown who has vetting problems or who will blow up with a scandal in the general election.

[Art_from_Ark]

46. The guy had been lieutenant governor, for crying out loud!

He almost beat Lincoln in the Senate primary, and he very well could have if Bill Clinton and Barack Obama hadn't stuck their noses in places where they didn't belong. Especially Obama. What the freak did he hope to accomplish by getting involved in the primary, in a state where his approval rating was less than 40%?

And on top that, in the run-off primary between Halter and Lincoln, the party only allocated 2 polling places in Halter's home county, and one of those was in a gated community, for crying out loud!

Halter had grass roots support, and the party snuffed it out. Instead, they hand-picked a candidate who ended up being one of many who cost the state Democratic Party its most humiliating defeat since Reconstruction.

[merrily]

54. IMO, the Party should remain neutral in primaries. No thumbs on the scale.

Primaries should be for "rank and file."

I have never missed voting in a primary. However, I may skip the top of the ticket in 2016 if my primary vote seems like only a token.

[Art_from_Ark]

110. Apparently, pre-primaries are just for weeding out candidates

who don't have Big Money backing them.

At the same time, however, if we don't like the slate of candidates (or more often, the anointed candidate), we're supposed to go out and find a grassroots candidate who can also attract the Big Bucks from the likes of Walmart, Tyson's, Stephens, ad nauseum. After all, the candidate ain't worth jack if they can't reel in the bucks

[merrily]

132. I know, right? That talking point makes no sense.

Then again, most of the talking points are bs.

[bvar22]

138. I'm with you guys.

The National Party, DSCC, DCCC, DNC, nor ANY national Democratic Fund Raising apparatus
has absolutely NO business interfering with local Democratic Primaries.

EVERY time the National Party gets "involved", they do so to subvert the will of the people.

[MADem]

91. Where were his donors?

If everyone in his "grass roots support" had given ten bucks towards his candidacy, and he amassed a huge war chest, the "Powers That Be" in the state party system couldn't ignore him.

Being Number Two in the leadership doesn't automatically give one the crown--look at MA. Charlie Baker (who was a LT GOV who ran and was rejected once before) was only able to become governor by being male, and beating a far more capable but less charismatic woman (MA has never had a female governor 'in her own right' -- we had one for a short period of time when the male incumbent left to take an ambassadorship) AND by having deep, deep pockets from his friends in the business community.

The things you are complaining about--candidates stumping for other candidates, polling place issues--are separate from the fact that your candidate didn't prevail.

Your candidate didn't prevail because he lacked a couple of things--"clout," and MONEY. He couldn't demonstrate to the leadership that he "owned" his voters, and he needed to do that. You're blaming the party for "snuffing out" his support, and I'm telling you that if his support was demon$trated $ufficiently through a PAC that he controlled, he'd get a LOT more RE$PECT.

It's the way it is. I am not saying it is optimal or desirable, but the only way to change it is to be in power in a decisive way.

[sabrina 1]

55. The objective is to get money OUT of politics, to STOP the buying of candidates, not to pour MORE

money INTO politics. And yes, it can be done. People learned a whole lot about this party from that race, Halter. AND from the NJ Governors race where Democrats ENDORSED and VOTED for the REpublican.

Which is why now they are working hard to push their own candidates, to stop listening to 'you have to vote for OUR Corporate funded candidate.

Doesn't matter how many donors the Corporate candidate has, once the voters say 'that is exactly what we do NOT want'. See the midterms AGAIN. The money didn't help those Third Way candidates the way it used to because Voters are now very frightened of all that money after seeing where the allegiance of the Corporate funded candidates is.

[MADem]

90. Have you not been reading what I write?

I do not endorse/approve/like/enjoy the fact that we live in a CITIZEN'S UNITED world, but that IS the world in which we live. You want it overturned? It won't happen if Jeb Bush becomes the next president. His Supreme Court picks will make DNRs a crime and abortion illegal, if he gets his way.

If you want a candidate to prevail, the way to do it is not to crab about other candidates, but get off those collective butts and start beating the CU people at their own game. That takes WORK. Not talk, WORK. Fundraising. Organization. Development of a ground game and a fifty state strategy. Identification of deep pocketed donors, and wooing of same. Not sitting in front of a keyboard crying like Rodney Dangerfield about how the national party doesn't give you any respect. You don't "get" respect--you have to earn it, and you earn it with productivity, not gripes.

I don't see much if any pushing of alternative candidates here, aside from the odd posting of a link when the desired nominee does something, like introduce a bill accompanied by a lot of Yay!! and WOOO! and "That's what we need!" but not a word about how to get from wishing-and-hoping to a candidate behind the podium. Saying "Harrumph!!! Money in politics is BAAAD!!!!" like people don't KNOW that already isn't helpful, either. I mean, DUUHHH. But we're not going to fix it by wagging fingers, and if we "opt out" of the system, we -- the Democratic Party, I mean -- LOSE.

I also see a lot of energy directed AGAINST one undeclared candidate to the point of absurdity. All this does is harden the resolve of supporters, it's not a mind-changing game at all, particularly given all the rudeness and derision and snide shit that some claim is "satire" when it's just poorly crafted snark. More to the point, though, I don't see any meet-ups, fundraisers, anything on those lines for these desired candidates--just a load of complaining. Complaining doesn't win elections--organization and outreach does.

And if you think money doesn't mean anything, you're wrong. Smart candidates gauge their strength through fundraising with dollar limits--small contributions from many are worth far more than a big contribution from one person, because those small donations represent VOTES. If you get ten ten dollar donations from ten citizens in Town X, you know that you'll get at LEAST ten votes in that town. That little shit Nader played that game, Howard Dean did it to very good effect, Obama WON with it, and the RFH crew is doing it now. It's a way of testing the commitment outside the usual -- and increasingly unreliable -- polling paradigm.

[bvar22]

120. I've been reading what you wrote,

...and you have a very "innocent" understanding of HOW local politics works,
and how the Primary Process of the Democratic Party works.
Its like you have never actually been there.

[MADem]

131. The "innocent" here is you.

I was talking to someone else about her remarks, but your enthusiasm to impart your POV is noted.

You're the one who "innocently" thinks that everyone in power positions was born with "millions" and that's how they "buy" their way into the system. You don't bother to look at their histories, and see how they worked their way up in the leadership. You start at the BOTTOM.

I know a lot about local politics--I've worked to get people elected, in fact. I've been a delegate to the commonwealth's state Democratic Party conference.

One thing I have noticed is that, in plenty of cities and towns, candidates run unopposed because no one will get off their butts and run against them. But when someone does, and they canvass, grip and grin, meet and greet, they can quite often win. Why? People like to be ASKED for their vote.

It's old school, but it still works. I guess crabbing in front of the keyboard, though, that's what makes an "expert...?" Mmmmm hmmm.

[bvar22]

139. Continuing an above "conversation".

I resent your Holier than Thou attitude from up there in Massachusetts.
You assume all we do is "crab" at our keyboards.

I have been in the trenches for over 40 years in several states, and some of the people you insulted up-thread have also been active in local Democratic Party Politics for many years.


So you can take your assumptions based on NOTHING, and your opinion based on those false assumptions, and put it them the trash where they belong.

[MADem]

143. Right back atcha. nt

[bvar22]

123. "you need to work your way up into the "fat cat" leadership"

OK!!!
Lend me a few 10s of Millions of Dollars, and I'll report back on how it works.
Thats the ONLY way to "work your way up to the "fat cat" leadership.

[MADem]

130. Oh really? Do you think Liz Warren was born a multi-millionaire?

How about Bernie Sanders? Hmmmm? Barack Obama--born with a silver spoon in his mouth? NOT. Harry Reid, born into wealth? Unnnh--NO. Dirt poor, he was. John Lewis? Gee, if he'd been a millionaire heir he coulda hired a bodyguard when he was crossing that bridge in Selma the first time around instead of getting his head stomped in.

Get real. You don't need millions handed to you. You need to get up and START something. You need to show people that you have the skills to fundraise and organize. That takes a bit of charisma, brains and w-o-r-k.

Or you can sit around posting on DU about how you don't get a fair shake and you need those millions to level your little playing field. Whatever. Let us know how successful that approach is.

You want it? Go get it. The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

[Jackpine Radical]

51. That sounds exactly like how we got Mary Burke as our candidate

against Walker in 2014. The Party Pros just had to have her.

[MuseRider]

53. Kansas has been run like this too,

there is a mighty force gathering to change this but so far it has not been changed. A few here and there with a few wins and a bunch of near misses and maybe we are on our way against the "big boys" who run the party like a social club simply recycling failed candidates and other failures because they golf or something like that.

[Art_from_Ark]

60. It seems as if the Arkansas Democratic Party just pushed the self-destruct button

When Bill Gwatney was chairman of the state party, Democrats held both US Senate seats, 2 or 3 of the state's Congressional seats, the governorship, and the state legislature. Then in August 2008 he was murdered by some crazy guy. In just the 6 1/2 years since that murder, the state has gone from solidly Democratic (in all but Presidential elections) to a sea of red. I don't think Democrats in the state control anything of note anymore.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Serious question ...

How did The state party apparatchiks forced Halter to bow out before the primary?

[Art_from_Ark]

92. Probably by refusing to give him any backing if he did win

A variation of what happened to him 4 years earlier when he almost beat Blanche Lincoln in the primary, but the party apparatchiks threw roadblocks in his way (like setting up only 2 polling places in his home county for the run-off election, including one in a gated community!), and having both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama campaign against him. Last year, it was quite obvious they wanted Mike Ross, who had essentially been a non-descript US representative, to be their candidate.

[Adrahil]

113. Then what's your answer?

You could work to change just who the party "apparatchiks" are, if you think they are a cause. Transformative politics always moves from the bottom up.

[MADem]

36. Wow--nasty accusation, that. And blatantly false. Nice smear job, though.

I thought Reagan was the biggest asshole going. I've never voted for a Republican, ever.

I've forgiven my Senator, Betsy Warren, whom I supported in her campaign, for being a Reagan Republican, though--I hope you don't harbor nasty attitudes towards her for that--though it sure sounds like you have a litmus test from your remarks. I delivered nearly a hundred votes to the polls for her on election day, too.

Not sure what "policies" you think I benefit from, but...whatever. You might want to put away that broad brush before you splash some of that stuff on yourself.

[randome]

67. "...us liberals..."

About as clever as a Tom Cotton these days.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Number23]

93. One thing I've noticed is that 99% of the folks here that are always breaking their arms patting

themselves on the back about "us liberals" and "we liberals" and "we on the left" are usually the folks that I think 99% of real liberals would run like Hell on Fire to get away from.

[MADem]

96. I think you've hit it out of the park.

The whole "protest too much" theme wears thin. And when they get bagged on that, they play the "pivot and move the goalposts" game.

I think the Koch Brothers are wasting their money, too.

Those two comments aren't necessarily related, mind you!

[Number23]

97. You did too, my friend!

You knocked it out of the park and on the first post in too!

All of the protestations and pivoting and whining and crying when asked to produce tangible results in the form of RUNNING CANDIDATES WHO CAN ACTUALLY WIN is just remarkable, isn't it?? I mean, if you want to have political clout and affect the political course in this country, how will sitting on the sidelines screaming that everyone else is not good enough do anything?

Call me pragamatic (that is SUCh a curse word around here, you know!) but I just think that the only way to affect political change is to actually have a dog in the race that's able to do something other than pee on the other racers.

[MADem]

98. Youf last sentence nearly cost me a keyboard!!

I damn near actually did roll on the floor and laugh out loud!!

[Andy823]

99. Great point

Simply coming on DU and as you sated it very well, "peeing on all the other racers doesn't do a damn bit of good, it only helps keep thing stirred up and divides the people here, of course that seems to be the agenda of some here. If these people really wanted to see change they would not be coming here to stir things up but to point out the qualities they find in the candidate they want to run in 2016. They wouldn't keep making remarks like "both parties are the same", or if Clinton wins the nomination the won't vote for here no matter what. Why can't they just promote the person they want to run, and get off of their computer and do something about finding a "great" candidate that they think can win, unless of course that isn't really their agenda!

[MADem]

95. Mmmm hmmmm!

Indeedy!

[sabrina 1]

6. We did that, in the mid terms. Didn't you notice, Liberal groups and orgs and supporters across the

country supported the reelections of Progressive Dems and found new ones to support and WON. Who didn't WIN, the Third Way candidates who do not represent the voters.

Also, working hard to put Progressive Issues on local ballots across the country and WINNING across the political spectrum, because voters now know DC isn't listening them so they are taking matters into their own hands and rebuilding their party from the ground up.

There were some spectacular victories for Progressive Dems, not supported by the party leadership, but supported by the voters.

The leadership backed the losers.

So our advice to the party is to the same as yours, they need to get 'off their behinds' and stop being led around by the nose by Wall St and LOSING, and start following the lead of the voters who are WINNING.

[MADem]

9. Whining about Clinton isn't "doing it."

Whining about Clinton is a rather poor substitute for doing anything of substance.

The last elections were a fucking nightmare, to my mind. There's no way you can claim any "win" there. We got hammered.

[sabrina 1]

13. Progressive WON in the last election. Now if the leadership again refuses to hear the voters,

there will be more losses. They are choosing and pushing Candidates the voters just don't want and refusing to back those the voters DO want. So the voters got what they wanted this time. And next time they are planning to add to those numbers.

No use trying to get DC to listen after all this time when they have refused to do so. So now, with two midterm victories for voters, Progressive Dems keeping their seats with a few more added, the groundwork has been laid for more victories for the voters.

Not to mention Issues again where DC turns a deaf ear to voters and babbles on even when we give them the House, Senate and the WH, about 'having to compromise' to WACKO RIGHT WINGNUTS.

So voters have discovered they CAN get the issues that are important to them pushed forward, locally where it counts while DC continues to be non functional with too much compromise from our Party.

It will take time, but it took time to get to where we are and the sooner the ship is turned around, however slowly, the better. And that process has already begun. And it's a shame the Leadership has ignored those successes which proves how important it is for voters to do it themselves.

I mean the Left has been told for nearly a decade now, to just 'stfu' and vote. That isn't a great strategyl. It worked when Bush was the issue, but after that, it simply won't work anymore.

When we see the Dem Party VOTING for and ENDORSING a Republican Gov in a Blue State, I mean they say to themselves 'WHAT IS GOING ON HERE' while telling US to just 'vote'???

People, contrary to the arrogant opinions of inside the DC political bubble, are NOT stupid. And the old 'just hold your nose'
and vote, then seeing the result of that, SS 'on the table' eg, means, is getting a big 'no thank you'. WE will select the Dems we want. We have and they won. Now we will select more Dems and do the same thing, support them, not the ones chosen for us.

All the party has to do is to really look at the mid terms and see the victories, and the losses, mostly theirs, and start WANTING to WIN by listening to voters, not these totally clueless political pundits, or paid operatives and think tanks who are so far removed from the people, it's obvious by their failures.

[MADem]

16. There's no way you can call the midterms a win.

Plenty of progressives LOST, too, you seem to forget. You can't cherry pick.

The candidates who won ran good, well-funded campaigns and got their points across. The candidates who lost didn't, or were outspent and scandalized, as the GOP will do.

Stop playing the victim. No one is telling you to "stfu and vote." You're not being frogmarched to the polls and handed a pre-filled out ballot. You have choices. You choose to hang around this clubhouse, which is a site that supports Democrats for election. No one is forcing you to stay here if it doesn't suit your needs. And if it does suit your needs, find a candidate from within the party ranks and support them--just stop trying to tear other candidates down. It makes you look like the only ideas you have are "I don't like THAT one." That's not a winning strategy.

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee. Whosoever is nominated by my party, that's where my vote is going. Most of the "Hillary Sucks" crowd won't make that same assertion, which makes me wonder why they even bother hanging around a site that says, in the TOS, that "...Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. " I mean, that's our PURPOSE here. So support your favorite Democratic candidate all you want. But if the only way you can support a candidate is by tearing another one down, you're going to lose.

The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

[sabrina 1]

19. You just don't see it. And that's what voters are talking about. It's like banging your head against

a brick wall, which people are just not doing anymore.

WE gave them the House, the Senate and the WH.

THEY lost the House and now the Senate!

WE kept Progressives in their seats and elected dozens of them across the country to school boards, local legislatures etc and a few in Congress.

It was not OUR job to support the Third Wayers the Party pushed AGAIN on voters and AGAIN, lost.

When a party LOSES an election, it is NOT the voters' fault.

But the stupidity of BLAMING the Voters, is yet another foolish, stupid tactic guaranteed to drive them away and see more losses for the party.

We will stay focused on Congress and Local elections from now on. Thankfully there are some great Liberal Organizations taking over this task since DC has little time for the 'Left'. The truth is THEY need US more than WE need them. But so far in their disdain for anything left of Nixon, they are still hoping they can attract Republicans I suppose.

[MADem]

26. Who's 'blaming the voters?'

You need to go back and read what I wrote.

[merrily]

57. Doesn't see it, doesn't choose to see it, doesn't admit seeing it. Doesn't much matter which.

Point is, yes, Democrats lost a lot of state and federal offices in 2010, 2012 and 2014, while voters did vote for ballet propositions that were considered more left than right. And those historic losses came after some historic wins in 2006 and 2008, when Democratic politicians ran against Republican values. The logical conclusion to draw from all that to my mind would be for politicians to run on and deliver things that are more left than right. Instead, some say that the logical conclusion is that Democrats need to run still more to the right.

[Scootaloo]

24. By your argument we ought to just abandon the election system

Run telethons instead, whoever raises the most by November wins!

[MADem]

25. No. I think people should fight FOR their candidates, rather than against the candidates of others.

Especially in a primary environment.

Look, I am not a member of the Supreme Court. I didn't say Money Equals Speech, they did. But that's the way it is, so if you really want YOUR candidate out there competing, you need to convince people that you are correct, you need to persuade people to support your candidate, you need to gather together a bunch of like minded people and raise some money. Those media buys aren't cheap.

But if your strategy to get your candidate on the ballot is to say "Well, that one sucks" you've got a losing strategy.

But on a lighter note....telethons? Really, why not? The Democrats would get a lot more money; we've got better entertainers on our team. The GOP would have to make do with the comedic stylings of Jon Lovitz and Dennis Miller, music from Ted Nugent, and maybe an excerpt from Hamlet courtesy of Victoria Jackson and "Frazier Crane."

[malokvale77]

33. Third Way, Bluedogs got hammered.

Why is that so hard to understand? If you want to go farther right, join the Republican party.

[MADem]

37. Lots of candidates got hammered.

Great Democratic Hopes, too.

And some got hammered because they were perceived as too liberal.

But many got hammered because they ran a poor campaign.

Here's one analysis that you won't care for at all--but I think this guy might be on the mark, at least for the southern state losses:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-j-barnett/why-democrats-lost-big-in_b_6126968.html

[cui bono]

17. For someone chiding someone else on a grammatical error, you should realize that

you are incorrect in saying that the OP is tearing down a candidate since there are no candidates as of yet.

[MADem]

18. Sorry--you're wrong. There are "undeclared candidates" in this race, and you know it.

Jim Webb, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have not declared their candidacies, but they are candidates. Elizabeth Warren is not a candidate--she's said so, repeatedly.

[cui bono]

27. In a political race, once you declare you become a candidate, until then you are not one.

Also, for one who went on about the OP's negativity, you sure dished out a lot of your own in your reply to the OP.

[MADem]

38. Yeah, that's why Gallup and others do polls to find out how these "undeclared candidates" might

do in match ups. That's why there are so many speculative news articles about potential candidates--candidates who have not yet declared.



I'm not negative--I'm pragmatic.

I think the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

39. If all the Democratic Party has is HRC then they have nothing but fear of a Republican who is worse

Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 06:37 AM - Edit history (1)

then the Democratic Corporate Candidate to motivate people to get out and vote.

Good luck with that apparently winning strategy.

[MADem]

40. Not sure what your point was, there. Primary season is a ways away. Have a nice day. nt

[anotojefiremnesuka]

41. I know you don’t otherwise I would not have responded in the first place. Enjoy your day!

[SomethingFishy]

102. We do find our own candidates.. and are promptly told "they can't win"

and that if we vote for them we are "giving the election to the Republicans, and have no right to complain if we lose".

No matter what I do Democrats are not happy. I worked for voted for and donated money to Obama, twice, and any time I register a complaint I am harassed to the point where I just gave up and put a shitload of people on ignore. I'm sorry, I earned the right to have my complaints heard and not be called a whiner, or to have political issues that affect me personally equated to a child not getting a pony.

Is it just "negativity and naysaying" when I question the fast tracking and secrecy of the TPP? Or is it a legitimate question?

Yeah we could use a little more organization and we need to push more candidates, but you guys could be a little more supportive. I mean really, "get off your behinds"?

[MADem]

107. PASSIVE. "Are promptly told..." -- and what do you do? Tug your forelock and say Yessir?

Listen to yourself. You're painting yourself as the victim, as the person who is being taught, told, ordered about. But you aren't that--unless that's what you, yourself, are willing to accept.

Stop looking to a leadership you apparently despise, and make your own way. That's what Howard Dean did, and he damn near made it, were it not for Unreliable Orange Hats who promised and did not deliver, and that unfortunate scream. But he built a fifty state strategy that he has RETAINED to this day, and he'll be using it to help the candidate he's endorsed.

You can whine and say "TPP" like you "know" what is going to happen with that process--but you don't, because it hasn't HAPPENED yet--but it's a great distraction from doing that hard work. And if you're so distracted that you've got to point to WAAAH TPP and WAAAH--Banksters, and this complaint, and that, you're never going to get off your (collective) asses and actually do the w-o-r-k to organize, fundraise, create a groundswell, and get somewhere with a candidate and a platform.

Enough with the "they" won't let me complaint. I think that's an EXCUSE. "Waaah, I complain but they don't listen to me!!" Maybe because you (and that is a collective you) aren't putting your money and energy and time and talent where your mouth is...?

It's way easier to sit in front of a keyboard and gripe...tear down, criticize, find fault--let off steam, accomplish nothing. The Kochs pay people to do that--so why would leadership even listen to that kind of stuff?

If you are sincere about your dissatisfaction (and I've every reason to believe you are sincere), and aren't just shit-stirring or rabble rousing, this is what I would recommend (NB: you are free to ignore my recommendations, of course): Get off the computer, get on the phone, and find out where your favorite candidate needs you. Then volunteer your time, your talents, your cash if you have any, in any way that candidate can use you. If there's fundraising to do (and there always is), get in touch with the principals around your candidate who are working that angle and fundraise--become a bundler; throw a few house parties, film nights, sing-alongs, whatever your set likes to do, collect donations to the cause and send them along to the candidate's PAC. Meet up with like-minded people, ORGANIZE. Stop trashing the candidate(s) you don't like, and start working for and talking up the one you DO like. Stop being passive, start being positive.

The "tear down" and "they don't listen to meeeee!" approach doesn't work--it doesn't change hearts and minds, it just sounds like petulance.

If you've got a better candidate, work FOR that candidate. The worst thing that will happen is you will gain experience, and that experience will stand you in good stead. The best thing that will happen is that you'll be in on the ground floor of a groundswell. But griping on DU is not being in on that ground floor--it's just, well...griping on DU.

As for "being more supportive," that's not on me. I think Clinton is a fine candidate. I'm supportive of her candidacy. It's not my job to be supportive of other candidates--that's what the people who support those other candidates need to do. I think that it is way past time a woman was in the White House, and there is no woman in the USA with her skillset--she has seen how the Congress works as a worker bee on the impeachment committee during the Nixon years, she's had a front row seat to the management of a state and the federal government executive branch, we all know full well she acted as an unpaid advisor as well as First Lady, she's been a twice elected Senator and served as Secretary of State -- recently enough for her experience and contacts to still be very useful.

If you want your candidate put forward, you have to work. Clinton's supporters have been at this for YEARS, her organization wasn't built in a day. And an organization doesn't just grow up out of wishing and hoping and complaining on the internet--it takes hard, unglamorous, crappy work, long hours, fundraising, donations, and dedication.

What I'm trying to tell you is this--it's on you. You want it? Go get it! Seek out the organizational structure that supports your favored candidate, and offer up your time and talent.

And may the best person win!

I will vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who he or she is. As I say, over and over again, the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

Sorry this is a bit long, but I had a lot to say!

[Number23]

108. Even better than your first foray in this thread!!

Stop looking to a leadership you apparently despise, and make your own way.

Enough with the "they" won't let me complaint. I think that's an EXCUSE.

Get off the computer, get on the phone, and find out where your favorite candidate needs you. Then volunteer your time, your talents, your cash if you have any, in any way that candidate can use you. If there's fundraising to do (and there always is), get in touch with the principals around your candidate who are working that angle and fundraise--become a bundler; throw a few house parties, film nights, sing-alongs, whatever your set likes to do, collect donations to the cause and send them along to the candidate's PAC. Meet up with like-minded people, ORGANIZE. Stop trashing the candidate(s) you don't like, and start working for and talking up the one you DO like. Stop being passive, start being positive.

Best damn post I've seen here in months.

[MADem]

109. Well thanks--it's how I sincerely feel. I would love to see some "platform talk."

I haven't seen hardly any, save one or two posts about Jim Webb, who has actually established an exploratory committee and is looking into the possibility of running.

He's not my favorite, by a long shot--I remember him very well indeed when he was trashing "Women in Combat" and sounded a lot like Newt "Infections in the Foxholes" Gingrich. He's the most conservative Dem going, and while he might steal a few votes from the GOP down south if the GOP candidate has no military service, I don't like his POV on a number of topics--he's not too social safety net-friendly.

If he ends up as the Dem nominee though, I'll put the clothespin on my nose and vote for him. It won't be easy, but I'll do it if I have to. The worst Democrat (and he's close, even though he's intelligent) is better than the best Republican.

[cilla4progress]

2. Thanks princiPLEs

[whereisjustice]

3. Thanks and yikes, fixed it.

[cilla4progress]

66. No worries

[Thinkingabout]

5. Sounds like you listed some RW platform items.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Lots and lots of Democrats for those things you first listed...

Lots and lots of Democrats from yesteryear who were against the things you first listed, too.

[nationalize the fed]

11. The Sanders Agenda for America

[brooklynite]

119. A great agenda...that he can't implement if he can't win...

...I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of how he wins a national Primary (much less a national General) with voters who are more mainstream than they are in Vermont.

[geek tragedy]

12. The good old days that never were. nt

[whereisjustice]

14. Yeah sure except for FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter and thousands of local and federal

democrats who fought for and defended the working class against the tyranny of the rich.

[geek tragedy]

71. FDR had a terrible civil liberties record.

LBJ's record of war-mongering is atrocious.

Etc etc etc.

[Blue_Tires]

105. So what are you doing on your local level, then?

[Octafish]

23. You wouldn't believe how different things were before Nov. 22, 1963.

Peace trumped money, for one.

[merrily]

85. That may be a matter of one's perception.

The way I see it war and "quasi war" has been with us longer than we've been a nation.

[Octafish]

89. That is the big picture. That's also why I'm a Kennedy Democrat.

President Kennedy followed up the New Deal of FDR with policies that advanced the interests of peace and prosperity of all Americans. JFK advanced the ideals of the Constitution: That ALL humans are created equal and enjoy equal rights under the Law. He got us started to the moon -- an endeavor that created wealth for a nation and reaps benefits to the present day. Best of all, JFK kept the peace when all advised for nuclear war.

Allen Dulles and JCS chairman Lemnitzer told JFK the best time to attack USSR was 'Fall 1963.'

Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963

What a coincidence LBJ would appoint Dulles to the Warren Commission, which never heard about the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro before the Bay of Pigs. It's no wonder they had no idea about the memorandum of Col. Howard Burris.

[merrily]

137. Thanks. I never heard of that memo, either.

I love when any DUer leads me to something I never knew before. That happens less and less these days, which is why I especially appreciate your post. I am bookmarking both links in your post.

On the 50th anniversary of the assassination, MTP aired an episode of MTP featuring Senator JFK, then running for President. He was asked why he thought he'd be good for the economy.* He replied that Democrats had saved American capitalism. I took that as a reference to the New Deal (in which, of course, his father had been a major player. Today, we tend to forget how close the crash of 1929 was to the Communist revolution, which had to have shaken people like FDR and Joe, Sr. greatly.)

Robert Kennedy was either a great actor or had a great heart for the poor and oppressed (or all the above). And, he was the only adviser to whom JFK listened during the Cuban missile crisis. With the benefit of looking back from 2015, it's not a huge surprise that RFK was assassinated, too.

* Eisenhower got credit for a "guns and butter" economy. However, FDR's war tax was still in effect, as were some New Deal programs; unions were strong and WWII had knocked out many of our competitors. Eisenhower also got credit for the national highway system, also something FDR conceived and had begun work on, but WWII superseded that project during his administrations. Ike also got credit for school integration, but did nothing until Democrats shamed him, including Eleanor Roosevelt marching into the White House to tell him to do something. And, Ike called appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren (Brown v. Bd of Ed.) the biggest mistake of his 8 years in office. Also told Warren that Southerners were nice people who simply did not want their little girls sitting next to some big gorilla in school. (Warren included that tidbit in his authobiography.)

[YoungDemCA]

124. I find your historical whitewashing not just inaccurate, but deeply offensive

Tell that to those who suffered under the Jim Crow laws under the solid Democratic South. Tell that to all the people who DIDN'T "share" in the wealth created by the post-WWII economic boom (aka "The Golden Age of Capitalism.&quot Tell that to those who had their careers ruined by McCarthyism and the Red Scare, or to other such "undesirables" like, for example, how gay people had NOWHERE to be open about their reality.

Tell that to all of the black, Latino, Jewish (in some cases), and other families who were deliberately and maliciously excluded from living in the middle-class white suburbs during that time.

"Peace trumped money". Yeah, right. At the height of the Cold War? After two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan (to say nothing of the firebombing of scores of Japanese cities, or the blatantly racist and unconstitutional interment of American CITIZENS who had the misfortune of being of Japanese ancestry during WWII?

I wouldn't believe how different things were before Nov. 22, 1963 because they were NOT nearly as different as you claim. If anything, things were worse for many people, many groups in society back then than they are now.

[Octafish]

128. Do you remember Nov. 22, 1963? If not, how do you know what it was like to be ''deeply'' offended?

I remember those days. Something else, what I know: President Kennedy worked 1,036 days to keep the peace and build prosperity for all Americans. He also believed in equal rights for all Americans and put it into practice. He ordered the FBI, Secret Service and other government agencies to hire and train African Americans.

JFK's administration been called the thousand days of Camelot. Really just a blink of an eye, for America it means more than that. It truly was a legendary time and America truly was a magical place — a place where anything was possible.

Consider what President Kennedy worked to achieve: He raised the minimum wage, cut taxes, kept America from nuclear annihilation three times, maintained world peace, set about to bring equal rights for all Americans, integrated FBI and the Secret Service, got the country to invest in the arts and education, and set out to do the impossible — land an American on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth. He did all that in 1,036 days, not much time considering how much JFK accomplished. And President Kennedy used each day to make ours a better nation for ALL Americans.

My, how things have changed. Here’s a bit of reality programming — what’s happened in the 16,976 days since November 22, 1963:

• Vietnam
• Guatemala
• Chile
• Watergate
• October Surprise
• El Salvador
• Reagan Survives Hinckley and Bush
• Voodoo Economics
• INSLAW/Promis
• Haiti
• Iraq-gate / Banca Nazionale del Lavoro arms
• BCCI International Money Laundering for Terrorists & Intelligence Community
• Savings & Loan scandal in general and Silverado in particular
• Iran-contra Guns/Drugs/Martial Law
• Gulf War I Glaspie Gives Go-Ahead
• Selection 2000 Shreds US Constitution
• Tax Cuts for UltraRich
• Criminal Justice Department
• Suicidal Environmental Policy
• ENRON Energy Policy
• 9-11 Criminal Negligence, at best; Treason, most likely
• Illegal Iraq Invasion
• Afghanistan for UNOCAL
• New Orleans left to drown
• Trillions for Wall Street Bailout
• Warmongers who lied America into war walk free
• Banksters who ripped off the banks and the US Treasury walk free

It’s interesting in reviewing the above list, a list spanning 51 years since the "intervention in Dallas", just how much conservative neo-con corrupt Republican leadership has really been a Contract On America. The list demonstrates there have been puhlenty of business opportunities in the finance, energy, and defense industries; But, that brief listing doesn’t sound like it’s been a good deal for the average American for the past four decades.

Certainly, LBJ got us the Great Society and much true progress. However, LBJ also foisted the Warren Commission whitewash on America. So, while there have been occasional flashes of the old Democratic magic in the administrations of James Earl Carter, William Jefferson Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, the fact of the matter is things haven’t really been the same for democracy in general and the USA in particular since JFK’s leadership.

BTW: I find your use of the term ''Historical Whitewashing'' offensive, YoungDemCA for reasons I've brought up before.

[treestar]

69. So true. The OP demonstrates

ignorance of the details of past history. Romanticizing LBJ and FDR can only be done if you know very little about what they did in their day.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

142. This ^ ^ ^

[Dragonfli]

15. K&R thank you for this tread ...

[ReRe]

20. K&R

I'm loving all these truthful educating threads tonight! Great job, whereisjustice.

[blkmusclmachine]

21. And now they stand for the 1% ...

[JDPriestly]

22. K&R.

[Jamaal510]

28. There are tons of D's in Congress

who have been pushing the upper policies. There's the progressive caucus, for example, and they've been working hard at it. Even Pres. O has been working towards things like equality and fair taxation. I'm not sure if some of these are really the party's "classic" principles, though. Before the Civil Rights Era and especially around the time when the party was first created, the party was not so big on equality, and even the foreign policies of prior Democratic administrations like FDR and LBJ were hawkish (between the wars and the internment camps).

[whereisjustice]

30. Don't confuse an instant in time with the momentum for progress. Over the course of recent history

Democratic Party values reflected exactly what I said. The trend has been clear. Starting in the 1980s it began to shift to the opposite direction.

The Progressive Caucus is marginalized by Democratic Party leadership at DNC level. There would be no need for a special caucus if the Democratic Party hadn't steered away from promoting the classic principles I mentioned.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the largest Democratic caucus within the Congress

I wonder if you'd like to suggest to the second largest Democratic Caucus, the Black Caucus, that their caucus is needed only because Democrats are so conservative since 1980. Black Caucus founded in 1969 and there has never been a moment in which that Caucus was redundant.
You say there is no need for them. I do not agree with you at all.

Back in the days you pine for, LGBT people were just barely making inroads with the Democratic Party, by which I mean the Party was starting, in the late 70's and 80's, in some geographic locations, to semi tolerate the presence of openly LGBT Democrats. Until Bill Clinton, not one single national Democrat had mentioned that some Democrats are gay. Not even a mention.

The Reagan 80's were the most toxic anti gay years in modern times. Straight America simply ignored the AIDS crisis for years and years while tens of thousands of Americans died. The Democratic Party did not rush to stand for decency or even for intelligent public health policies.
Today, Straight America is less horrifically ignorant and bigoted. Marriage equality is becoming a national reality. Then Straight America was happy to stand there and watch us all die while they voted for Reagan yet again.
Progress is not just something that folds and spends.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Yet without the kind that folds and spins you got jack shit

People have to eat.

People need shelter.

Got to have water.

Got to have sanitation.

People want to support their children and provide them with opportunities the best they can manage.

Folks have to pay those student loans.

People wear and tire out and need to be able to retire.

Everybody, each and every one and gay is no exception and your equality is not in a contest with your everyday survival so stop framing it as such, it is a logical and practical fallacy. It is the true divide and conquer logic, it seeks to divide you from even your own essential needs in a desperate but phony choice.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. And yet you think you need to explain to me that I also need money? What towering arrogance.

The issues you think of as 'social issues' are also economic issues, you are just unaffected by them and thus do not understand them.
I am a Union Member, a labor activist. Want to lecture me about retirement and pensions? Because I'm gay you think I need your straight wisdom to explain money to me?
Dig this: my entire life, your Straight Community has pillaged and abused my personal economy as well as those of other LGBT people in numerous ways. Let's start with the fact that in 29 States, LGBT people have absolutely no protection from discrimination in employment. You say 'without the kind that folds and spins you got jack shit' as if it was not YOUR community imposing discriminatory laws upon LGBT people. We can be fired, refused a job, openly and legally 'you are gay so no job for you'.
And yet you think LGBT people do not know about nor need economic justice? That 'civil rights' are are unrelated to 'economic issues'? How is that? How does one eat without a job? How does one grow old and retire if one is not equally protected in the work place?
The tax laws are another area of Straight Piracy against us. Unfair. My entire lifetime. So you get a better tax deal, you get 50 States of fully protected workplaces and yet you are explaining to me that your needs for more outweigh our desire to simply have what you were born with and feel entitled to?
"Some LGBT people are poor. In fact, after controlling for a number of factors associated with poverty, rates for LGB adults are higher than for heterosexual adults.

This fact should not be surprising. After all, LGBT people are born into all types of families, including those who are poor. LGBT people face the same socio-economic challenges that other people who share their sex, race, ethnicity, age, and disability face. But they also face unique obstacles because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. These include a higher risk of being homeless when they are young, harassment and discrimination at school and at workplace, and being denied the economic benefits of marriage."
- See more at: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/headlines/beyond-stereotypes-poverty-in-the-lgbt-community/#sthash.EwAxNMej.dpuf

[TheKentuckian]

59. I didn't pirate shit from you and don't know what this "community" of mine is.

You have no counter, in fact you seemingly agree but want to argue so you want to rip my ass for shit I don't support because I was born with a different orientation than you and have the insolence to dare say that necessitous people have no freedom or practical rights even though you know it to be fact.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. You are preaching to me that people need jobs even as you argue that those of us who seek equal

protection in employment don't care about economic issues. Did you read the link?
If jobs are an important economic issue, and LGBT people face legal discrimination in employment then ending that discrimination is very directly addressing income inequality issues. You can not suggest that there is any sort of equality as long as there is discrimination in employment.
LGBT people face all the same economic bullshit as you do, then some more that you are not even aware of.
From that link again:
"LGBT people face the same socio-economic challenges that other people who share their sex, race, ethnicity, age, and disability face. But they also face unique obstacles because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. These include a higher risk of being homeless when they are young, harassment and discrimination at school and at workplace, and being denied the economic benefits of marriage."

Vague insults hurled at me do not substitute for specific discussion of the facts raised. 29 States. Talk about that instead of lashing out and avoiding the substance of the matter.
Economic progressives do not run about claiming that workplace discrimination against minorities is not an economic issues.

[whereisjustice]

61. I never said any such thing. You are putting your words into my mouth. I've spit them out.

Don't speak for or as me. Ever.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. You: "There would be no need for a special caucus if the Democratic Party hadn't steered away from

promoting the classic principles I mentioned." I offered the Black Caucus has existed since the 60's and that they most certainly saw and still see the need for their caucus. You said such a caucus is only needed since the 80's, and would not be needed if the larger Party was more progressive. I do not agree with you, as I think minority caucuses are a vital tool for advancing issues and policies that are specific to their communities.
A discussion involves discussing. No one has agreed that you get to make declarations uncontested. And you did say "There would be no need for special caucus if' and I simply did not agree.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. +1.n/t

[whereisjustice]

84. "You say there is no need for them. " - show me where I said this? Retract your misquote. You hijack

a thread, misquote me and you don't have the integrity to retract?

My response was to this point in the original thread

There's the progressive caucus, for example,

You then proceeded to hijack the thread and misquote me.

That's disreputable.

So, how's the prosecution of Ferguson leaders for racketeering and corruption going?

Probably about as well as the prosecutions of Wall Street fraud.

Maybe its time for the caucuses to get off their asses and make some noise.

But if they decide to do that, I'd recommend they use their own words.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. +1 ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. It's easier to romanticize the Party of olden days ... that appeared to work ...

than admit that nothing has changed in the Party.

[YoungDemCA]

125. The Party may have "worked" back then....

...but for whom was it working?

Rhetorical question...

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Some did, but...

there were those Democratic segregationists down South and the machines in Chicago, Boston, NY, Louisiana...

It's easy to point to FDR, JFK, LBJ and a few others, but they were far from the majority of Democrats even in their times.

[YoungDemCA]

122. There you go again, introducing facts into an attempt to whitewash history

How dare you!

[Scuba]

44. This is why all the emails just say "The Republicans did something awful. Send cash." Policy? Ha!

[RiverLover]

45. I'm so sick of those emails.

They all need to watch "The Roosevelts" over & over until the fact that Democrats need to Stand for People again sinks in.

[merrily]

141. Keep unsubscribing. Eventually, it works.

[lovemydog]

136. So true. They should find popular policies like raising the minimum wage

and rally around support for that. Fear mongering might work for the right, but getting people out to vote FOR something works better for the left, imo.

[99Forever]

47. Ageed.

And if the Democratic Party doesn't return to those values, it will become irrelevant.

[Android3.14]

58. Who needs principles?

It's Hillary's turn, and that's all that matters.

[LanternWaste]

116. With little else, the half-wit pretends a bumper-sticker is someone's premise, and argues against th

With little else of depth, the half-wit often pretends a bumper-sticker is someone's premise, and argues against that.

[randome]

62. Sorry, I disagree that Democratic principles have changed.

I especially think your list of the 'new' principles reflects anger and not objectivity on your part.

What has changed is the influence of the Libertarian mindset that views all the original principles as absolutes despite the imprecise wording: "Safeguarding the constitutional protections..." That doesn't mean something you can point to, it means different things to different people.

The NSA spying is way overblown, IMO. That's what spy agencies do. They spy on foreign targets. Even Bob Woodward said it appeared to him they have sufficient safeguards in place to prevent abuse. I suppose he is no longer a 'true' Democrat.

But I agree we need a new firebrand to take care of the things you listed, especially equality and reigning in corporations. It won't be Clinton but until someone better steps up to the plate, it's unbecoming to tear down our own.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[MFrohike]

111. Woodward never was a Democrat

He's been a Republican since at least the days of Nixon.

The NSA issue is not spying on foreign targets. That's just grist for the mill. It's the blanket surveillance of Americans inside America that is the issue. One can hem and haw about pen registers and the like, but the basic issue is whether it is right AND necessary for the security organs to conduct surveillance at home. It's not an issue of constitutionality, which is something damned few understand, but an issue of whether the sovereigns (remember that bit about "We the People"?) should be watched for no more reason than a politician's fear that something bad might happen to his career.

[treestar]

68. A party is a cobbling together of like minded

people. The Democratic party is for people on the left. Each person has different principles. They are closer to each other's than to Republicans, and that's why we band together to oppose Republicans, as Republicans do the same in reverse.

Quit telling us we don't have principles. Included in our principles is not going off into our own corner because we know that's useless. Politics is about getting along with people with different principles.

[HereSince1628]

73. cobbling together of like minded people...that implies shared values

based on shared beliefs and, yes, shared principles.

The problem is the dem base and the dem professionals share less and less.

Poll after poll shows the dem base further left than their professionals. Why is that? Because winning takes moving toward the opponent is the prevailing wisdom. Serving the big money campaign donors, aka, oligarchs requires the professional dems to become kulaks, managing the nation to serve the oligarchs.

Selfishness pervades the oligarchs and the politicians, neither of which is thereby inclined to govern for the community as a whole.

[treestar]

74. You are creating a division between people

and the ones you call "professionals" are supposed to be bad guys.

The "oligarchs" are obviously bad guys too. Can you name any of them by name?

[HereSince1628]

78. Yes

Under professional dems who work for corporate interests Rahm Emmanuel, Ron Kind, Charles Schumer.

Under those who would subvert dems to serve corporate financial interests:
Jonathon Cowan
John L. Vogelstein
Bernard L. Schwartz
David Heller
William D. Budinger
David A. Coulter
Jonathan Cowan

etc

[treestar]

86. Make these people more famous the masses need to know their names. Instead

Of thanks Obama it should be the people on this list. Most Americans seem so unaware these Are the actual people in charge m

[hrmjustin]

76. I don't think the party's principals have changed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. Principles become inconvienent incumbrances to ambitious politicians.

Particularly when they interfere with fundraising or doing what's politically expedient.

[HereSince1628]

87. Holding to principle -seriously- interferes with triangulation

Strips degrees of freedom in that style of campaigning to near zero

Why do you hate a whole generation of Dem campaign advisers?

[Maedhros]

126. "Don't let the principled be the enemy of the expedient."

New Third Way talking point!

[SidDithers]

80. How about honesty and transparency?...nt

Sid

[Jim Beard]

88. It isn't just Hillary

Many of the new Democrats form a new group of people that are single issue people that really do not share some of the old ideology. I am saying those relatively that are attracted to the party do not share past majority values. I am an FDR Democrat which is mostly economic so I can say from my point of view that environmental groups and same sex issues are not a part of the economic roots. Or lets say we are connected by necessity.

Gay rights and environmental issues are low on my priority issues although they do have some of my support. at the same time those of gender issues are a mix of very wealthy people who could care less about the disadvantaged. Its kinda like the "Country Club Republicans" allying with the "Religious Right"

[Blue_Tires]

94. So quit crying if you don't want Hillary, and

1. Identify candidates who you think would be better

2. See how potentially interested they are in running

3. Hit the street and start organizing interest/fundraising


OR, you can do 4, which is to bitch and moan on DU all the way until November 2016, whining about how the party never listens to you about the game-changing candidates it could have promoted...

[whereisjustice]

100. lmfao - Let me translate your tough guy sound bite to what you really mean:

"If you don't like Goldman Sachs running the Democratic Party, then start your own investment bank and buy your own candidate"

Why not? Because this is what happens

It is well known that Wasserman-Schultz supports Republicans Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen over their Democratic opponents, although lately she has been pressured into giving belated and grudging support to Joe Garcia and Raul Martinez who are opposing the Diaz-Balarts. I always figured that she was just afraid of the Hispanic backlash in her own district. What I hadn’t considered is that she is just afraid of all incumbent Republicans in Florida. When I met her in Denver, she immediately told me that she couldn’t support me, saying I hadn’t raised enough money. I told her that I had raised $100K, that I was a military retiree, that my family is living on my wife’s Air Force E6 pay, and that I wasn’t able like other “viable” candidates to drop a quarter of a million dollars into my own campaign. I then told her, “Congresswoman, I am one of those working-class guys that our party claims to represent.” Her response was “Don’t pull that populist stuff with me.” I thanked her for her time.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/09/debbie-wasserman-schultz-to-florida.html

America’s anti-liberal myth: Why Dems learned the wrong lesson from 1984

Your calendar says it’s 2015, but it’s always 1984 in mind of the New Dems. These are the economically conservative Democrats that include centrists like the old Democratic Leadership Council, Third Way and financial sector-centric elected Democrats (plus Robert Rubin, the Rubin-launched Hamilton Project and associated advisers on the policy side). As always, they are again invoking 1984 to conjure images of a grave danger to Democrats’ ability to win elections in the form of ascendant progressive populism.

The New Dems’ scare story goes something like this: In 1984 Walter Mondale lost 49 states because he ran as a Super Liberal. Democrats would have kept losing if the New Dems had not formed to take control of and steer the party. In 1992 Bill Clinton ran as Centrist Man and Democrats started winning elections again. Now, economic progressives who prioritize other things before Wall Street’s approval are causing trouble. If these progressives Democrats represent the party it will again be banished to the political wilderness and forced to relearn the lesson of the ’80s and ’90s.

This premise is not only wrongheaded, in important ways it’s backwards. The temptation not to relitigate something that is, after all, over 30 years in the past is obviated by 1984’s continued role as the go-to cudgel against progressive Democrats. The New Dems’ reliance on the ’84 cautionary tale is illustrative of an under-appreciated dynamic in the struggle between the progressive/populist coalition and the Wall Street wing: there never really was a big, public “fight for the soul of the party” in the 80’s and 90’s. While Bill de Blasio’s election in New York and Rahm Emanuel’s unexpected struggle in Chicago, along with the prominence of Elizabeth Warren, may seem like a lot of gained ground in short time, it’s not Too Much Too Soon. It’s long overdue.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/14/americas_anti_liberal_myth_why_dems_learned_the_wrong_lesson_from_1984/

[Blue_Tires]

103. ok...fine...you win

Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

We're all powerless wage slave pawns at the hands of the one-percenters and nothing will ever chance that, so why even bother?

Tell you what -- You just keep whining and bitching and see how closer that gets you to your idealized goal...

[Jim Beard]

106. Very good

I like what you posted.

[LanternWaste]

115. I'm satisfied with the Democratic Party platform.

I'm satisfied with the Democratic Party platform.

[L0oniX]

118. Hillary... uhm err hmm ...Oligarchy 2016.

[YoungDemCA]

121. You mean like these principles?

The Declaration of Constitutional Principles (known informally as the Southern Manifesto) was a document written in February and March 1956, in the United States Congress, in opposition to racial integration of public places.[1] The manifesto was signed by 101 politicians (99 Democrats) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.[1] The Congressmen drafted the document to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which determined that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto

Yeah, as geek tragedy said: "The good ole days that never were."

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

127. Here's what I've observed about how the process works in the USA

The President can't really get anything done unless allies, in both houses of the Congress, are there to assist him/her. If the SC is sympathetic so much the better.
In our current situation all of the candidates that appeal to me (Sanders, maybe Warren, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Al Gore) don't really have those political relationships in the House/Senate that can help them pass the legislation our country needs.
In the meanwhile the Koch Bros and their ilk as spending money to frame the narrative and sway public opinion.
So, yes I agree Dems of today aren't the Dems I remember as a kid (50's/60's) and money has really changed the game.
I'm of the mind that says any meaningful change to the status quo will have to come from us. We are the people we've been waiting for. To look to a Messiah in DC is to abdicate our responsibility to ourselves and our children.
Maybe we need a third party? A Labor Party? Labor could be construed as anyone who is not an owner. After all, that's what we have here right?
We are either owners or workers. There is no in between...............

[hifiguy]

129. Well, that was before the DLC brigade sold the party to Wall $treet

back in the 1990s. You weren't alone in doing it, but I am looking straight at you, Bill and Hillary.

The Turd Way is simply the malicious half-wit offspring of the now-defunct DLC. They want to finish the job and kill the real Democratic party once and for all. And many here cheer them on.

[merrily]

134. DLC, Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute, Century for American Progress, No Labels, all

spawn of the thinking that the Koch Brothers wanted Democrats to adopt.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

And then, they tried to emulate the concept of a political party within a political Party.

[bvar22]

140. +1

"the DLC brigade sold the party to Wall $treet
back in the 1990s."

WORD!

[JoePhilly]

135. Hillary isn't our only option ... Lots of words ... No alternative mentioned.