This is not your father's Democratic Party....

[kentuck]

This is not the Party that went to Washington to represent the people and who got paid $35,000 for doing so.

This is not the Party that knew if your were going to pass anything worthwhile it was going to be very, very partisan. Bi-partisanship was not something they concerned themselves with. Politics was war, not peace.

This is not the Party that would put their own career interests and the corporate interests behind those of the people they represented. They understood that you cannot worship two gods. Either you represent the people or you represent the corporate interests. You cannot do both.

This is not the Party that would stand up bravely against the Republican talking points and bravely bat each of them down. They were not meek in their actions or demeanor. They were willing to fight for what they believed in without regard to polls or the next election. The believed in the wisdom of the people to interpret their deeds.

No, this is not your father's Democratic Party. They are not even related. When was the last time they passed anything for the people? Now that they have a chance with health care, they look like cowards. If LBJ had shown similar courage, we would never have had the Civil Rights Act.

[Cleita]

1. Actually it is. My dad was a Republican, but today he would be

comfortable as a New Democrat because they stand for his ideals. He would be really disgusted with today's Republican Party though.

[truedelphi]

9. My dad was a Republican for his first 88 Years and then

He voted for Gore in 2000.

Had he lived to see it, he would be so disgusted to have seen the Corporate giveaways, the Bailouts, the constant concessions that have given away the middle incomed person's money to the Upper One Percent.

And had he and all the other "greatest generation" folks lived to see this, they would have stopped it, even if it meant wheeling down Pennsylvannia Avenue, with their care givers and oxygen tubes in tow.

[Warpy]

13. My dad's last vote was just before he turned 88

and he voted for John Kerry. The last Democrat he'd voted for had been Adlai Stevenson.

Stupid's presidency got through to a lot of people just how crazy the Republicans have gotten.

Chances are that they'll have to pretty much die out and the progressives split off from the Democrats (the pattern in the past) before we'll get any real reform.

[truedelphi]

15. Here's what I have been gleaning off various websites.

Pew Survey - 28% of all Americans consider themselves Republicans.

Some 32% consider themselves Democrats.

That leaves a whopping forty percent not happy with either party. And of that forty percent, sixteen percent (of the 100% total) can be identified as happy to be affiliated with Democratic Progressive ideals.

One of the bigger problems I see is how divisive the abortion issue is. There are just so many people who cannot bring themselves to vote for someone who is for Roe vs Wade, even though that person might bring about wonderful progresssive policies. They want to make abortion illegal even if it means that we have wars they don't want, or ridiculous Bernanke-style people holding down the farm and destroying the economy.

[EFerrari]

21. Imho, the economic meltdown, the job loss and the foreclosures

are about to take over abortion at the top of most people's list.

[Enthusiast]

75. Single issue voters

or near single issue voters are a major concern. There is also the issue of gun rights.

Many of these voters hold their nose while voting Republican because, through skillfull propaganda, they have been convinced the Democrats are coming to rip the baby from their daughter's womb and take away their guns.

[Mojorabbit]

67. My pop was a lifelong republican also

but he voted for Kerry as his last vote before he passed. He told me the republican party had lost it's mind and the people running it scared him to death. He hated George Bush.

[DrDan]

2. rec'd . . . . beyond talking a good game . . . not so much action

[EFerrari]

3. This is not my mother's Democratic Party.

The leaders are to the right of Barry Goldwater.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. You're right. My father's Democratic Party was the party that sent him off to Vietnam.

[EFerrari]

5. And that leadership was voted out. That would never happen today.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. You're right. We won't have a draft today.

[EFerrari]

19. Exactly. This isn't our fathers' media, either. n/t

[truedelphi]

28. I am very sure that the Upper One Percent was quite happy when

the likes of Walter Cronkite and Ed Murrow shuffled out of the news production studios.

So that when someone says this "Although Single Payer Universal Health Care would be my first choice if we did not already have a health system in place, since we do have a system in place, our solution to the health care reform efforts must be uniquely American." Barack Obama, from Dec 2007 on

Does that sentence even make sense logically? We "have a system in place," the system that is so wretched that 44,000 people a year die from it being in place, a system so wretched that we have to have reform it, but "our solution must be uniquely American." Gee let's make ourselves an omelet, but let's not crack open any eggs.

If we had a real news media in this nation, we would be a totally different place. Maybe that "UFO beliveing shrimp" of a man would be in charge of something on the Federal Level, rather than simply representing one small district in Ohio.

[obxhead]

63. I talk with people from around the world frequently

and we take that gotta be different stance for so many things it's insane. We buck the norm on so many simple things that it astounds me. The metric system, Celsius thermometer, driving on the left, and on and on. We must be different to the point of insanity.

[truedelphi]

64. But as long as our insanity is working so well for

Us, what's to change??

Oh, wait a minute, maybe it's not working all that well.

[change_notfinetuning]

80. That sentence, from Mr. Change You Can Believe In, is the antithesis of change.

There's usually a system already in place, but if it's broken, we need a common sense solution. The American solution is usually business as usual. A "uniquely American" solution suggests, to me anyway, business as usual on steroids, and that's just what this mandate/no public option bill really is. It could be called the neutron bomb of health care reform because it kills any real reform but leaves the insurance companies and for-profit providers of health care intact.

As for the MSM, I don't think it's all that different from the past. It was never enough to get the whole picture. There have always been the stories and people that, for some reason or other, were curiously absent or under-reported. Unfortunately, a big reason IMO was the public's lack of interest. You always had to read the hanging-by-a-thread publications. Today, also, if you read selected publications of the MSM, you could still get enough of the flick to be pissed at what's going on, and with a little further investigation, you can be outraged. You don't have to use the internets (although it is cheaper and more convenient) or read a single blog to be sufficiently informed. I think a bigger problem than the mediocre MSM is the disinterest and apathy of too many Americans - the Stupid Majority.

[olegramps]

85. It makes me wonder if Obama was president at the time:

Would he have signed the Civil Rights legislation that Johnson did. Johnson knew it was going to be a disaster for the Democratic Party in the South, but it signed it anyway. It takes someone who is willing to sacrifice it all to bring about real change like Truman did when he ordered that the armed forces were to be integrated. Hell, I would have gone to war with FDR even though he was in a wheel chair knowing that he wouldn't desert me in the thick of the fight. I can see him leading the charge and that is why so many people respected him for his determination. He wasn't afraid to be wrong. Obama seems to stroke the status quo and to be lacking the compassion that is needed for real change. He appears to be far too pragmatic to ever attempt any really dramatic changes. He had a golden opportunity to tell the Republicans and the worthless bastards that are DINOs that the simple solution is the extension of the opportunity to enlist in Medicare has to be offered to all the citizens. But that would have taken real guts. I would suggest that Obama read Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage" to see what is required of real leaders.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. And the hell of it is, we DON'T have a system in place. What we have

is corporate anarchy passing itself off as a system.

[Jax]

68. +1

yes EFerrari

[Hannah Bell]

55. just an economic draft. regular military or "contracting".

[leveymg]

105. Actually, we can thank Nixon for ending the draft.

Along with establishing the EPA, the last President to impose wage and price controls, and the 18-year old vote.

I'm afraid to say, Obama is to the Right of Nixon.

[Better Believe It]

61. That's right. This party leadership would send him off to Iraq or Afghanistan

[ThomWV]

99. It is the Democratic Party that sent me to Viet Nam to, and I voted for them then, and do now

I cast my first vote via an absentee ballot cast from a Firebase on the Cambodian border, just south of the tri-border with Laos. I voted Democratic.

[Faygo Kid]

6. The Dems I remember were fighters - for unions, civil rights, justice.

They were Paul Wellstone, Robert Kennedy and, yes, Hubert Humphrey.

They were also Bill Clinton, who gave us maybe the best eight years in our history.

They sure as HELL weren't the cowardly senators looking to kiss Rush Limbaugh's behind.

[xxqqqzme]

96. Hell yes. The last time the Democrats stood

up to rethuglicans was when Clinton called newt's bluff over shutting down the government. Since the rethugs nearly impeached Clinton over a blow job, the democrats have been shaking in their boots. The DNC was nearly silent during the post November, 2000 chaos. And made no sound after the SCOTUS activist ruling. Then w/ the further intimidation of the post 9/11 rhetoric and calling anyone who disagreed w/ them unpatriotic, flag hating, soft on national security wussies; we arrive at today. A bunch of afraid-of-their-own-shadows Democrats, cowering under the stern gaze of a bunch of bullies that have no power. The Democrats continually defer to the rethug screaming lies, obfuscation & obstruction because the RW media is the echo chamber allowing this decided minority a voice they have not earned and do not deserve.

And we all look on in bewilderment and shake our heads because they seem to be deaf to our voices.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Your last comment is pretty unfortunate, Kentuck.

Unfortunate because LBJ enjoyed far more luxury than Obama does with the healthcare bill. LBJ had wide Republican support to pass the Civil Rights bill. In fact, more Democrats opposed the healthcare bill than Republicans. It was passed because they received nearly 90% of Republican support.

That isn't the case today.

If you want to compare the scenarios, you've got to make some adjustments, okay?

Imagine LBJ passing the Civil Rights Act if he only had 63% of the Democratic support as he originally did (31% of Democrats in the House voted against the Senate bill) and received ZERO support from the Republicans as opposed to the 80% he received).

The voter makeup would be 153-227 AGAINST The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It only passed because Republicans voted for it. Democrats did, as well, but if the situation with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were similar to the healthcare debate today, it would not pass. It would have failed, regardless of what LBJ did.

So don't compare the two. They are not the same.

[kentuck]

12. But LBJ was the Democratic President...

and he pushed it thru even though he knew his Party would probably lose the South for a generation or more. And he was right.

But it was the Democrats that brought it up, not the Republicans. Yes, they had to vote for it because they were the "Party of Lincoln". But just like now with healthcare, they did nothing when they had the chance...

[Drunken Irishman]

20. He pushed it through because he had support across the board.

Republicans supported it and a majority of Democrats supported it.

You're comparing two different situations. LBJ did not face a united Republican Party. Obama does. Obama doesn't have the luxury of grabbing 130-some odd Republican votes for his healthcare bill.

The Democrats did bring it up. You're right about that. But the Republicans also voted for it. They ain't voting for the healthcare bill. Which means Pres. Obama, unfortunately, is facing a far smaller margin of error than LBJ did with the Civil Right's Act of 1964.

And back then, the Democratic Party wasn't united. Only 63% of House Democrats voted yes on the Senate bill.

Had it not been for the GOP support, no amount of arm-twisting and tough talk from LBJ gets that bill passed.

Now give Obama 80% of Republican support and then we'd have a justifiable comparison. Then we'd get to see if he was truly weak or passive or defeatist.

But it's hard to look weak when you're handed a pretty solid majority from the start. And outside of the filibuster (by DEMOCRATS), LBJ had the votes. He had them because of the Northern Republicans.

[kentuck]

24. And why did not Eisenhower & Repubs push it thru when they were in power?

And why did not George W Bush and the Repubs push thru health care reform when they were in power? It's not like they didn't know there was a problem. Same politics.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. I don't know what you're getting at here.

I never said the Republicans were better or that it wasn't politics. You're right. Eisenhower didn't do it. But why didn't Truman? Or FDR?

What I'm saying is that LBJ faced a far easier situation to getting his legislation passed than Obama does right now. That was because he had almost universal Republican support, which balanced out the lack of support from Southern Democrats.

Obama not only has to deal with the lack of unity in his own party, he has to deal with a united Republican Party.

My point is clear - if LBJ had faced a similar divided Democratic Party as he did and a united Republican Party against the Civil Rights Act of '64, it does not pass. It goes down in flames and we're probably not sitting here using him as a shining example of how to get things done.

Well he got things done because the Republican Party was vastly different back then. The Northern Republicans were generally moderate on social issues and only fiscally conservative. There was no Republican base in the south.

Today, that is not the case. The Republican Party is completely opposite of what it was in the 60s. Now we can debate whether the Democratic Party is completely opposite, as well, but it doesn't change the fact that even in the 60s the Democratic Party was filled with racist conservatives - they were just offset by the moderate Republicans. That isn't the case today.

Pres. Obama has zero margin of error when working with Congress. He has to thread the needle perfectly because the Republicans will oppose him at every step. That was not the case for LBJ at any stage during his monumental legislative wins.

I mean, the Social Security Act of 1965 was greatly supported by the help of Republican congressman John Byrnes. If it weren't for him drafting the act, who knows what happens.

Again, LBJ and much of his Great Society was rooted in Republican support. He had the benefit of those votes from Northern Republicans and that is something Pres. Obama does not have.

If LBJ faced a similar Republican Party, most of what he accomplished on the domestic front might've never happened.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. This is not about the ability to pass legislation - it is about having the

political courage to push for good legislation and damn the political fallout.

[EFerrari]

23. What luxury are you talking about? LBJ knew he was going to lose the South.

So a Republican voting for the Civil Rights Act was doing his own party a favor -- by passing a bill that would ensure an exodus from the Democratic Party in the South.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. I don't think you get it.

This debate isn't about whether or not LBJ would lose the South. He knew he would. This is about actually getting things done. LBJ couldn't have been able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without wide Republican support. You can't compare that situation with Pres. Obama.

That was his luxury. He knew he could get it done without Southern Democrats. He had wide support and it doesn't matter why those Republicans supported the act - they did. That's the bottom line. Pres. Obama does not have any support from the Republicans. Had LBJ not had Republican support, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 dies on the Senate floor.

[kentuck]

26. But the point is:

He knew he could get it passed. Obama could get health care passed also, if he worked as hard as LBJ. It doesn't matter who votes for it as long as it passes.

[Drunken Irishman]

36. That is completely dishonest.

LBJ had the votes from the opposite party. That's why it passed. LBJ didn't work to get those votes. They were there.

You're being dishonest here, Kentuck. You're comparing two vastly different situations.

I say you're dishonest because LBJ failed at convincing Southern Democrats to support the Civil Rights Act. He already had the support from Northern Republicans from the start. It wasn't a question. Obama has the support of absolutely NO FUCKING REPUBLICANS. That is the difference.

All the working in the world today by Pres. Obama isn't going to convince one Republican to come over and support the healthcare reform bill. So a lot of this does come down to the Democratic Party and its support for the legislation. But again, there is a difference. A good number of Democrats OPPOSED the Civil Right's Act of '64. No amount of arm twisting by LBJ changed that. He was not tough enough to get those southern racists to vote for the bill.

No amount of arm twisting from Pres. Obama will convince some Democrats to support reform. That's a fact. That's the life of politics. It happens all the time. The difference, again, though is that Pres. Johnson had a fall-back option (the moderate Republicans). Obama does not. Obama does not have one moderate Republican he can pluck to substitute a lost Democratic vote.

So for all the tough talk from LBJ in 1964 and how hard he worked - he still wasn't tough enough to convince over 30 Democrats to support the Civil Rights Act.

In the end, his situation and Obama's are only similar the fact they both faced a disunited Democratic Party. The difference, and the key, is that the Republican Party was not united in 1964. They are now. When you're facing total opposition from the other side to what you propose, it makes it that much harder to get things done. Johnson never once faced that.

So stop with the comparison. If Obama worked as hard as LBJ? Are you really saying that? LBJ didn't have to work at all. He walked into the situation from the start with enough moderate votes to get the damn thing passed. Obama? Not quite. :eyes:

[kentuck]

40. I would agree that the Republican Party was very different also...

But what I am saying is that LBJ wanted to pass the legislation and he didn't care how or where he got the votes. He got them. Obama has one of the largest majorities since LBJ and he says he wants to pass health care reform. But somehow, he can't find the votes? He wants bi-partisanship? He should want 51 votes.

But Eisenhower could not even contemplate getting Democrats to cut the tax rates on the wealthy the same way that George W Bush did in 2001 and 2003. So that is one big difference in today's Democratic Party and the Democratic Party during the pre-Reagan days. I think you would agree with that big difference?

[Drunken Irishman]

44. Who says he doesn't have the votes?

You're acting as if Pres. Obama has given up on healthcare reform. That isn't true.

Johnson also garnered votes through bipartisanship. That was the only thing that got Civil Rights passed. Had he not had their support, it doesn't matter how big his Majority is in the House & Senate, it fails.

That's what is facing Pres. Obama...but he has actually been more successful in getting Democratic support than LBJ did for his legislation.

The difference is that he wasn't being railroaded by the Republicans & the Democrats. He only had to fend off the Democrats. Well this time Pres. Obama has it coming from both sides and it has proven to be a very difficult situation for him.

However, it ain't over yet and I feel as confident as ever we'll get healthcare reform. It won't come with Republican support, but it will happen.

LBJ was lucky that he had across the aisle support from the start. That wasn't in the cards for Obama, so it isn't hard to see why his situation was far more difficult. And had LBJ faced the same hurdles as Obama, we don't know if he gets the Civil Rights Act passed.

[kentuck]

46. I hope you are right..

I see your point. But Obama should not care if he has 30 Republican votes and 21 Democratic votes, so long as it gets passed. And he should not pare it down to the bare bones if he has the votes to pass it as a piece of meaningful and historic legislation. He should only care that he has 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. That is the name of the game the Republicans play. Why should we play by different rules.

[liberation]

69. Excellent points...

... let's also not forget that LBJ had the shock from Kennedy's assassination and used it to pass a lot of things. Most people in the US are not taught proper historical context, if they are taught any history at all. Anyone romanticizing the Dem party of yore, while completely ignoring the Southern Democrats, is being very shortsighted in their historical recollections or very dishonest.

That is why political parties which are not beholden to a clear ideology are counter nature to politics. Because we can't put the Dems in their proper ideological context, for example.

[Captain Hilts]

79. You shrug off 'losing the South' far too easily. It was a Big Deal. nt

[EFerrari]

60. Yes. This is about getting things done. I agree with that.

And LBJ knew how to play Capitol Hill like a violin. He was a leader.

[olegramps]

89. The Civil Rights Legislation had nothing to do with politics.

It was determined by rejection of Jim Crow laws that were immoral. It was a moral issue that spanned party lines. Also religious leaders were a powerful force behind its passage. It was the filthy racists bastards against what was morally right. Unfortunately the situation remains to be the same today in most of the South. Yes, there has been improvement, but there is a lot of residual racism.

[John Q. Citizen]

82. You are incorrect. Please correct your mis-statements and check your "facts" before posting thanks

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally65.html

You said, "In fact, more Democrats opposed the healthcare bill than Republicans."

Either you don't know your history, or you think no one will notice that you are posting gross mis-statements of fact.

[ThomWV]

100. Your argument fails if it omits the developing "Southern Strategy" from that time

Nixon was gone, but indeed those in the South who doggedly held on to the name Democrat were indeed the forerunners of todays ultra right. So to say that Democrats were not supportive is absurd when by any measure those same Democrats of the late 60's are todays Right Wing Republicans. On the other side of the coin northern Republican, repulsed by the vile racial prejudice the Democratic south embraced - even though they were plagued by the riots in the cities - joined in the fight agains the remnants of the slave south.

So in effect at the time you describe the Parties were well into shifting identies. You will recall that it began with what is called Nixon's "Southern Strategy" by which the sold Democratic south would be converted to Republicans.

[Autumn]

10. They are not even my

Democratic Party anymore. I can remember when they stood for something.

[hfojvt]

11. "the last time they passed anything for the people?"

I guess the stimulus bill does not count. Neither does the increase in the minimum wage. Neither does the Matthew Shepard Act. Neither does the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Neither does SCHIP expansion. Neither does increased spending for Veteran's benefits. ...

Yep, as long as you ignore, or pooh-pooh everything they do, I guess they haven't done anything.

[kentuck]

14. Nothing you mention compares to Social Security, Medicare...

the 40-hour week, or the Civil Rights Act. They are not unimportant but they are not comparative legislation.

[laughingliberal]

27. +1 nt

[hfojvt]

30. you cannot do something earth-shattering every year

a game can be won by strings of little base hits and not just the more noticeable grand slam.

Saying that they aren't doing anything huge is not the same thing as doing nothing at all.

[kentuck]

42. True, but...

When there is a crisis, as defined by the reality of 45 million uninsured and healthcare costs going thru the roof, then there is a time for a home run.

[hfojvt]

48. both of those have been mostly true for the last two decades

or longer. I seem to recall a hospital accountant speaking in one of my classes and talking about spiking health care costs - in 1991!

[kentuck]

49. Then when the Repubs took over in 2001...

they forgot about it. They pretended the problem didn't exist. Until Obama brings it up again, then they have all these grand solutions to solve the problem.

[Greyhound]

34. Nibbling around the edges and "granting" that which is already law is hardly

reformative, more like gestures to create talking points.

Oh wait, here they are...
:rofl:

[hfojvt]

47. I must have missed the part about Democrats having power

for so many years, and a mandate for huge reforms. The backlash was pretty severe in the last attempt at health care, and we seem to have lost this round as well.

[SlingBlade]

16. Democratic Underground was born in times like this

Don't let them fool you. We can take it back, All of it !

[havocmom]

18. We had WH, Senate, and House and still zip for the people

We can take it back? Hells bells, we DID take it back but the sold us out like they were not the majority.

We can't do squat until we face facts and the facts with most of the DEMS in office ain't pretty. They are NOT working for us. We put them there, gave them the majority they could lead with and they shit on us.

[SlingBlade]

33. That's because we DO NOT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

We, Me included, Have railed against the Freepers for their hypocrisy in supporting
so called Conservatives that are no such thing.

We need to send a message, Loud and clear.
This is a fight we cant afford to lose, Please, Do it, The info is .. Here:

The Democratic Party Suicide Prevention Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7814462

[Bluebear]

35. Hell, a lot of the collective we here think that Obama is just dreamy & everything is fine

There doesn't seem to be much of a push for legislation helping the common man or woman anymore :(

[SlingBlade]

37. Dude I know, I've been called nearly every freep tard name in

the book by some of our D.U members here because I will not let it rest.

But ya know what, Too Bad, So Sad, Cause I'm not going back to sleep.
I'll continue to accumulate ignores and UnRecs until the fight is over.

Do it, At the very least make a phone call or send 'em an e-mail. Please.

[Bluebear]

38. I will do it.

[SlingBlade]

39. Thank You. That's what D.U is all about :)

[Lorien]

87. Absofreakinglutely!

Sometimes I think that the worst "punishment" we could inflict on the Dems for their betrayal would be to vote even more of them into office in November. With an even larger majority they would be at a loss for how to spin their inaction and corporate whoredom.

[bvar22]

17. THIS is "My Father's Democratic Party":

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

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

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

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."--FDR

THAT is the "Democratic Party" I joined 44 years ago.
It bears NO resemblance to the Political Party using that name today.

I am BEYOND DISGUSTED by today's "New Democrats", and that includes Obama.
With "New Democrats", who needs Republicans?:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

29. It is so sad for me to read that and compare it to this party we have now

How far we have fallen.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. ...and then he went ahead with japanese internment.

[G_j]

56. +1000

[olegramps]

90. FDR was a leader, not a follower. They are few and far between in history.

Even though I was only a child during WWII I realized that FDR was a loved and respected man that provided uncompromising leadership. The people trusted him. That can't be said about many of the today's professional politic ans. Their sole concern is about getting reelected and the optimum time to "spend more time with their families" which translates into "I can't pass up this deal."

[upi402]

22. Corporatism; All hail the UNIPARTY!

Do not attempt otherwise. Resistance if futile.

[Odin2005]

32. America is a single-party corporatist state.

The 2 major "parties" are just there too keep the fools that think of politics and sports entertained.

[Enthusiast]

77. It serves the corporate masters well.

They play "good cop, bad cop" with the American people.

[KoKo]

41. This is not that "party."

But, it's a real "Party" :party: for many...hoodwinking folks. Bait and Switch..moving the carrot further forward every election cycle for the dumb donkeys.

Hey...it's a REAL :party: with Whizzers and Bangers and Lot's of SNARK!

I didn't think I could get more cynical...but it seems the depths of cynicism have no bounds for some of us...for some of us.

[David__77]

43. I am glad of that!

It's not the party cheerleading the Vietnam war. It's not the party of George Wallace. It's not the party of Scoop Jackson, the Lieberman of the day.

[Raine]

45. EXACTLY on point

and how sad it is. :-(

[Warren Stupidity]

50. My father's Democratic Party tried to send me to VietNam and

only managed to pass the civil rights act with an infusion of Republican moderates as it was constituted 30% with vile outright racists.

[kentuck]

51. Surely you are not painting the entire Party with that brush...?

We all agree there were vile racists in the Party at that time but we found a way to get rid of them. And give them to the Republican Party. Is that so bad?

[Warren Stupidity]

53. I don't quite get your point.

"the entire party" up until '65 was a party that was constituted with 30% vile racists. The other 70% quite obviously were not vile racists. That party also was at least 70% in favor of the vietnam war up until '68.

This sudden discovery that the Democratic Party is the other half of the duopoly is not such a revelation to those of us who came of age in the 60's. Those of us who don't suffer from Boomer Selective Amnesia have known this fact all along.

However even the vile southern racists would vote for medicare when they were in our party, and there were, in my lifetime, two brief interludes of Democratic Party lead Congressional progressivism: the post Kennedy whackage era (64-68) and the post watergate congress (74-78.) Outside of those blemishes, the remainder has been War Party bullshit, corruption, pandering, non-oppositionalism, and other perfidious nonsense.

[Union Yes]

54. Raise the YELLOW DOG Dem from the dead! knr nt

[DisgustedInMN]

57. Cripes.. it isn't even ...

.. my Democratic Party anymore. It's Republican Lite.

[sam sarrha]

62. if it gets bribed by Corporations like a Fascist,..votes like a Fascist... it's an F'n Fascist.!!,

grow some Ball's fellas.. wear your arm bands on the outside of your shirts... :dilemma:

[2Design]

58. it is not my mother's democratic party n/t

[The Gunslinger]

59. Actually is kinda like my father's republican party.

[VPStoltz]

65. Well, the Demoncratic Party HAS passed something, 290 bills in the House.

These 290 bills passed - with Republican support (though that really means nothing) - are sitting in limbo waiting for those asshats in the Senate to look at them and do something with them. The Dem can't even talk about them because they know Mitch McChinless will "Tarantino" them.
But there is valid point to this rant.
The Dems in the Senate are also spineless shills for the insurance companies.

[Hamlette]

66. You're right. Your father's democratic party was racist.

what a bunch of clap trap. Not sure how old "your father" is but he exists only in your imagination.

As someone who has been working for democratic candidates since 1960 and who's grandparents did the same before me, you are living a dream.

come join us.

In reality.

And keep up the good fight.

(If you are, as I suspect, a republican, forget everything I just said.)

[DisgustedInMN]

70. Funny..

... it's isn't the OP who actually comes off as sounding like a Republican to me.

[Hamlette]

107. What? You disagree?

You don't think the Democrats were racist in our father's generation? Or that they were more progressive then than now?

The former is easy to prove: Dixiecrats.

the second is also easy: if things are bad now, how did they get that way? Was it all done by republicans? Vietnam? Hiroshima? Letting McCarthy run ruff shod over the country?

Most Dems are a pretty good lot (I'm rethinking that for progressives but I won't go there on DU) but our party had many members in my father's generation who make Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Lieberman, and the other blue dogs look like commies.

[DisgustedInMN]

108. Funny again...

.. there isn't a single one of the names you used that actually is a Democrat, every one of 'em is a DINO, 'cept LIEberman, he's just a POS. Fuck a whole bunch of Dixuecrats, I never voted for or supported a single one of those. BTW, I went door to door for Bobby Kennedy, so tell me all about "what the Democratic Party used to be like," I need a good laugh.

[Hamlette]

109. I went door to door for his brother, John

you can disavow all the dems you don't like. I would like too as well. But they are no worse or better than the Dixicrats of Scoop Jackson for gawds sake. Remember, Scoop gave us the current crop of Neocons. They all worked for him! If the democratic party was so much better in my father's day, why did we do all of the war mongering? Why didn't they pass health care?


Going back to 1960 when I started working for the party (I actually walked door to door the first time in 1956 for a local democratic senator, the last democratic senator from my state). Yes, there were some great liberals but for me the issue was the war in Vietnam so we "took over" the democratic party to nominate McGovern and how did that work out for us? That was "my father's" democratic party. The one we took over to nominate McCarthy and McGovern. The one that brought us that wonderful, progressive, liberal war in Vietnam for nearly 15 fucking years.

LBJ and FDR were the two great liberal presidents in terms of accomplishments. In terms of guts, LBJ not so much.

Oh, and then there was Wilson. Who I'm not terribly fond of. Again it is the war thing.

[DisgustedInMN]

110. Why should ...

.. I give a fat rat's ass about Scoop Jackson. That's nobody to me. I don't what your fucking point is, nor do I care.

[JTFrog]

73. +1

[democrank]

71. Read then reread bvar22`s reply....number17.

The Democratic Party of today is nothing like it used to be.

[HereSince1628]

72. My father's democratic party was the party of Sam Rayburn

Democrats controlled the House over much of my father's life.

[Enthusiast]

74. They look like cowards but

only because that looks better than what they really are. Sorry, but it is true.

[Jennicut]

76. My Dad is a diehard conservative and thinks this Dem party is socialist but you have a good point.

Politics shifted to the right by the 80's. Ike would be considered a Dem today.

[Krashkopf]

78. You are RIGHT . . . My Father's Democratic Party was the party of FDR

[SlingBlade]

81. Nor is it MY democratic party, Cause I remember a few things

Are these the same guys who were shuttled to the basement by republicans when THEY had the power ?

I was just curious cause some of the same names keep popping up calling for bi-partisanship

[slackmaster]

83. My dad was indeed a Democrat, and he would hardly recognize today's party

Rec #100.

[grahamhgreen]

84. My dad fought in WWII - they did not torture people nor would they allow it. nt.

[Romulox]

86. Don't look now, but some of *our* fathers' Democratic Party was the crappy Triangulation

of Bill Clinton. So same same.

And time marches on...

[efhmc]

88. Well said.

[whathehell]

91. You are absolutely correct. My Dad, an old FDR Union Democrat

was disgusted with the Democratics by the early nineties, when Clinton was Prez..His take on Big Dog, btw, could be described as feint praise: "He's a nice kid..He wants to help people..That's about all I can say for him".

He thought they were spineless compared to Truman, FDR and the Democrats of the 40's, 50's and 60's.

He once stopped a discussion on contemporary (late 1990s)Democrats but proclaiming "There ARE no Democrats anymore"!.

[onenote]

92. in 1965 a Senator earned $30,000

Adjusting for inflation, that equals over $200,000 in 2009 dollars. Senators currently earn $174,000 a year. So from the standpoint of how much they're paid at least, still my father's party.

And my father's Democratic party was actually pretty bi-partisan. Had to be, since the Democratic party was divided along regional lines. Civil legislation -- one of the crowning achievements of my father's Democratic party -- only came about because Democrats and Republicans worked together. LBJ's courage was not in standing up to repubs, it was in standing up to, and ultimately getting around, southern Democrats.

[Javaman]

93. The Democratic Party that we know ended with the election of ray-gun...

Carter was the last real Democratic president. After him, we got nothing but corporate controlled party sock puppets. Clinton and Obama are repuke lite.

[Cetacea]

104. And is still fearfully responding to his followers...

[ChiciB1]

94. And... This IS NOT A President Like My Father KNEW Either... Today

on Joey Scar... almost all were saying that Obama just didn't take the bull by the horns like LBJ or other POTUS's when given the opportunity! Should have said no more Mr. Nice Guy a long time ago, screw Bi-partisanship because it was NEVER going to happen, and even those who sat on the fence like "BLANCHIE" find themselves IN TROUBLE!!

Some guest said... "you don't HAVE TO BE LIKED, you HAVE to be respected!" From that I take, put up or shut up, take the BULL by the horns, whatever phrase you want to use... STILL, the bottom line is this... It just ain't getting done!

Therefore, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY splintered with DLC, Blue Dogs against REAL DEMOCRATS! Of which there are FEW real Democrats, the likes of MY FATHER'S PARTY!

Too Bad, Too Sad!! Perhaps I should say it's their own fault, they deserve it, but the other bottom line for me is this... I am a Democrat and I want MY PARTY BACK!!

[northofdenali]

95. As a life-long Democrat, with parents who were also

Democrats (probably from birth), I can also guarantee this isn't your grandparent's Party. We used to get down and dirty, kick ass and take names. No more. :(

[omega minimo]

101. Men's only discussion, apparently.

FAIL

[avaistheone1]

102. Recommended

I think about the points you have made all the time. The Dems of old would have been disgusted with what the Democratic party has become today.

Good post.

:thumbsup:

[Chulanowa]

103. No, but this is my father's complaining

Imagine if you will, a Tommy Chong voice.

"They're like, the same, man. We shouldn't vote, at all! Shut the system down, man!"

My dad was an idiot. So are those who hold his argument.

[bkozumplik]

106. corporate interests

"Either you represent the people or you represent the corporate interests. You cannot do both."

Agreed.
We can carefully constrain the corporations and they will still thrive. The idea that they need to be allowed to do whatever they want to succeed is bunk.