Ignore the 3rd Way shills with extreme prejudice

[brentspeak]

Don't even bother listening or engaging them. They are toxic. Their time is gone, over, finished.

The time is now for the Democratic rank-and-file to agitate for an immediate, radical change at the top of the Democratic leadership -- with members of the rank-and-file itself taking some of those spots.

The 3rd Wayers are not Democrats; they are infiltrators. Treat them as such.

[mmonk]

1. I started doing that when I became

a gerrymandered voter. It's amazing how crystal clear thinking comes over you.

[L0oniX]

2. Progressive populism is the way.

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/218525-2014-election-and-progressive-populism

http://ourfuture.org/20140423/as-middle-class-falls-behind-we-need-a-progressive-populist-response

http://prospect.org/article/our-progressive-populism

[Jackpine Radical]

151. Kinda OT, but

I just tried to squish your ^&%$ little ant on my screen again for about the 4,000th time.

[laundry_queen]

153. haha, I've also done that more times than I care to admit. nt

[cascadiance]

205. Especially with ant season now upon us and real ants also on my screen at times...

... that I DO need to squish!

[Mnpaul]

215. Just the opposite here

all the little buggers are frozen solid right now(17 degrees).

[Scuba]

3. K&R

[Oilwellian]

4. Indeed. Third Way is not the democratic way. n/t

It never made sense to give the party power to those who claim to be "New Democrats" or a "Third Way." I want my first way Democratic Party back.

[villager]

5. Their greatest "success" is always in giving us far-right Congresses...

n/t

[GummyBearz]

30. The new congress

Will be really good for a hillary presidency. They will have so much in common... no doubt they will get a lot of corporate tax cuts implemented.

[Mnpaul]

218. It's all Nader's fault

rinse and repeat

[villager]

230. Well don't you dare blame it on your sprawling choice of one-and-a-quarter political parties!

Ingrate!

[Zorra]

6. Recommend.

[taught_me_patience]

7. What is "third way"? n/t

[Zorra]

12. Third Way is a socially liberal moderate republican think tank that claims to be Democratic.

Descendants of the Democratic Leadership Council, they promote 1% business favorable policies, corporate owned candidates, war, globalism, cutting social security benefits, etc.

Left-------------Center-----Right
Democratic Party - Third Way - Republican Party

In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.[1] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[2]

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

United States

See also: New Democrats and Third Way (think tank)
Two Third Way proponents: Professor Anthony Giddens and former U.S. President Bill Clinton

In the United States, "Third Way" adherents embrace fiscal conservatism to a greater extent than traditional social liberals, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the administration of President Bill Clinton.[38] With respect to U.S. presidents, the term "Third Way" was introduced by political scientist Stephen Skowronek.[39][40][41] "Third Way" presidents 'undermine the opposition by borrowing policies from it in an effort to seize the middle and with it to achieve political dominance. Think of Nixon’s economic policies, which were a continuation of Johnson's "Great Society"; Clinton’s welfare reform and support of capital punishment; and Obama’s pragmatic centrism, reflected in his embrace, albeit very recent, of entitlements reform.'[42]

Clinton, Blair, Prodi, Gerhard Schröder and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way philosophy in 1997 at Chequers in England.[43][44] The Third Way think tank and the Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#United_States

[Rex]

40. They are easy to spot too, just bring up OWS and watch their hatred flow.

Really, they are a bane to the party and should caucus with republicans since they agree with the GOP on most things.

[sabrina 1]

157. Lol, I know, they really hate OWS even more than the Far Right.

[noiretextatique]

219. and liberals and progressive period!

they are as bad as the rabid right.

[sabrina 1]

225. Yes, their disdain for liberals and for protesters who oppose Right Wing, Wall St. policies gives

them away. At least here you would think they hide it, but apparently the thought of the Dem Party being the Party of FDR, where the people are what the party works for, appears to be something they cannot tolerate.

[wavesofeuphoria]

187. yep!!! +1

[woo me with science]

191. Indeed, or any whistleblower

or journalist exposing the corporate coup and complicity of both parties.

[Dont call me Shirley]

54. Explained like you have, 3rd way sounds exactly like Libertarians. Never thought of it that way.

[Mnpaul]

217. Actually, they are just the opposite

they are authoritarians who use government to send money in the right direction at the expense of everyone else.

[Dont call me Shirley]

224. Libertarians are authoritarians in sheeps clothing.

[Mnpaul]

226. Exact opposite

Libertarians believe in liberty to an extreme

Authoritarians despise it. Liberty takes away their power.

Look at any political compass. They are opposites.

[Dont call me Shirley]

227. Libertarians only believe in liberty for the rich, for everyone else it's authoritarianism.

So is that Rand or Ron?

[LondonReign2]

56. Spot on

They are Republican Trojan Horsers

[woo me with science]

69. Thank you. Third Way=Wall Street infiltration of the Democratic Party.

Neither the corporate Democrats' prominence in the party nor the constant propaganda on behalf of them was EVER a grass roots phenomenon.

They are a corporate-bankrolled, deliberate infiltration of the party with the goal of transferring the party's representation and policy agenda from the people to corporate interests.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[Scootaloo]

101. Socially liberal, once the liberal social issues are foregone conclusions, that is

They opposed marriage equality all the way into 2011, remember. They're still hugely resistant to equal rights for brown people (they support the principle, but seem to oppose the practice) and immigrants still scare the shit out of them.

[TheKentuckian]

161. Socially liberal my ass, they aren't radical regressive is far as I'm willing to go.

Chock full of love for the private prison complex, out of control police, like the death penalty, love the drug war, down with deportation, support the Hyde amendment, and are always against progress on the social front supposedly for political considerations until the bumpkin pass them by and they start the pretense of fierce advocacy after the cake is baked.

Moderate at best and then only for hostage taking, vote for us or the gays get it type thing.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

20. http://thirdway.org/

Straight to the source.

[taught_me_patience]

23. thanks. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

65. My pleasure.

Well, not really "pleasure" -- I'd like to wipe that organization from the face of the earth. They're gunning for Social Security and folks need to focus on that, not Kim Kardashian's bleached eyebrows. Grr.

[woo me with science]

70. I probably should have put this reply under your post.

Zorra's response was so good I put it there as an addition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5778632

[LostInAnomie]

77. A nonsensical boogieman paranoid DUers a terrified of.

You know how tin-foil hatters are always afraid of the CIA or the Illuminati and blame them for everything?

Third Way are DU's CIA/Illuminati.

[BlindTiresias]

79. Lol

You are delusional.

[LostInAnomie]

89. Right... I'm the delusional one.

Not the people claiming that a third tier discussion forum is being infiltrated by a cabal of Wall Street money men for some nefarious purpose. That sounds perfectly sane.

[msanthrope]

104. And not paranoid, at all. nt

[Rex]

90. Totally.

Now said poster is defending the CIA!

[L0oniX]

111. LMFAO

[sabrina 1]

117. They don't exist, is what you're saying?? Just want to understand your point. Simply calling

the Left, (a primary target of the Third Way btw) names, doesn't offer much chance to discuss this right leaning Think Tank, whose Board of Directors, (yes they really are that organized within the Dem Party) consists mostly of Investment Bankers.

I wonder why YOU would deny their existence, when THEY are very proud of it and of what they have done to the Dem Party.

So I guess to start I am asking if you ARE saying 'they don't exist', or are you saying they do and their Right Wing policies are welcome in the Dem Party??

[LostInAnomie]

123. They exist. They just don't give a shit about DU.

Seriously. DU has almost no actual influence outside of its members. We aren't political taste makers. Other then a couple mentions on internet radio talk shows and Rush Limbaugh, no one has heard of us.

So why exactly would a group of rich influence peddlers and bankers want to spend money on shills here?

[sabrina 1]

128. Good question 'why would a group of rich influence peddlers and bankers want to spend money

on shills here'.

Why bother with Democratic online forums at all? Yet these influence peddlers seem to be very interested in them.

Maybe because these sites expose what the VOTERS are thinking and since they don't believe VOTERS/DU Members, matter other than to be quiet and vote for THEIR choice of candidates, they send out their talking points, (btw, that is how we first discovered their presence on online political sites, they never speak from the heart, they deliver Think Tank Talking points in an attempt to discredit real people talking about inconvenient, for them, real issues. You've seen them I'm sure, 'purity troll' 'all you want is a pony' etc etc. I think they prepared those ridiculous, meaningless 'talking points about ten years ago which is when we first saw them and KNEW they came from some Think Tank.

The Internet does have power, and they know it. Enough power to provide voters with access to INFORMATION. Information is POWER. The Media is under the control of Corporations, but the Internet presented a real threat to the 'spinners'. OF course it is worth their while, and we've seen PROOF, even proposals from some pretty influential DC insiders, of the fact that they absolutely send out operatives to try to influence the dialogue.

Surely you have not missed the many, many articles that have been written on this topic.

[Rex]

132. Those goal posts just keep moving and moving.

Now it has shifted to "DU doesn't really matter"...then why all the fuss then? So obvious.

[sabrina 1]

136. I know, and I thought DU was so powerful we were responsible for 'suppressing the vote'.

It's hard to keep up with the ever changing claims and excuses for why the Dem Party has gone so far astray.

[LostInAnomie]

139. Maybe because people are tired of seeing paranoid delusions...

... popping up all over DU.

[Rex]

140. No I think it is sheer desperation from Third Way apologists.

It is kind of obvious when they go from one excuse to the other. Thankfully it is only about 5 or 6 people, the rest of DU is handing them their asses.

[LostInAnomie]

141. Right... it has to be "third way apologists".

It couldn't be people that just think the howling lunacy of conspiracy theorists is pure idiocy.

[Rex]

142. Well like I said just 5 or 6 and they seem to not even know one thing about the Third Way

when pressed, so their game is incredibly weak.

So you don't believe in conspiracies? None at all?

[LostInAnomie]

144. I've seen the evidence.

It is less than compelling.

[LostInAnomie]

138. How can you look at what you just wrote...

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2014, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

... and think it doesn't look like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic?

Some secretive powerful cabal, that never delivers messages themselves, is commanding shills to infiltrate your favorite sites with their talking points. Talking points that you "knew" had to be created by a "think tank" because they contrast with your concept of the world. You even threw in a few CAPS words to show you're serious.

In your quest to find boogiemen, you have become unhinged.

[msanthrope]

143. I miss Hannah Bell on threads like this. She could connect Bohemian Grove and the

Illuminati to just about anyone......

[sabrina 1]

171. Mm, 'the ramblings of a Paranoid Schizophrenic' and I am, according to you 'unhinged'.

But aside from the attack on the mentally ill (we have a family member who is a Paranoid Schizophrenic so I am very familiar with this tragic disease).

A Mental Illness which you clearly view as some kind of shameful, bad, reprehensible thing that can be used as an epithet against someone you CLAIM to disagree with, but you provide NOTHING to back up your claims.

Well other than a despicable slam against the mentally ill.

Now, back to reality.

How about we start with Cass Sunstein, a friend of President Obama who was considered for a Cabinet position.

Ever heard of HIM, or read HIS proposals on how to 'inflitrate CHAT ROOMS' and other online forums?? You are actually using his 'tactivcs', minus the assault on the Mentally ill, right now actually.

Let me know so I can provide you with HIS 'ramblings' and 'unhinged' proposals.

And of course there are the documents recently released etc etc

As I said, you are actually doing what Sunstein proposed, calling people who are telling the truth 'Conspiracy Theorists'. I believe that is where that particular TALKING POINT came from.

Thanks for the Demo, too bad you had to attack the mentally ill in your attempt to try to distract from the truth.

Next time, just use Cass Sunstein's 'talking point' without the assault on the Mentally ill, just call people telling the truth 'Conspiracy Theorists'. We welcome that talking point as a compliment, considering the history of where it came from.

[treestar]

167. So fight them on their own terms

Where are the progressive operatives? Why don't they infiltrate the Third Way's sites, or even the right wing sites? They need to start doing that and getting our talking points out there. How will you get the people to understand that the media is under the control of Corporations? You have the INTERNET and could get those talking points out there. When everyone understands that the corporations control the media, they will resort to the internet to get INFORMATION.

The progressives are seen here as the only group unwilling to do anything but complain others are doing things their way. Has that worked? No. Get the progressive operatives out there. That's step one. The Corporations don't sit around. That's why they are winning. You have to FIGHT the Corporations.

[sabrina 1]

174. We are here, doing exactly as you propose. Apparently they don't like it very much.

We progressives did a whole lot more in this election than all the whiny 'we hate the voters' people here who have done nothing but attack voters, while those voters were actually getting ISSUES passed in their own districts. What did YOU get passed, btw? I am so proud of the passing of so many Progressive ISSUES around the country. Voters WERE busy, and they ARE learning the best way to get what they want, and they said so, at the BALLOT BOX. Too bad you didn't hear them and prefer to spend time on the internet attacking those Progressives who are actually accomplishing something.

[treestar]

176. Turnout was low. What voters are you talking about?

You need to get out there and convince the bulk of THE PEOPLE that the CORPORATIONS own the media and they should go to the Internet for their information, so they will know to vote and to vote for PROGRESSIVE legislators. Where are the operatives who are doing that, so we can get a congress that is not only majority D but those Ds are PROGRESSIVE and not Third Way? I only see complaining that the third way has OPERATIVES who are here trying to derail the progressives and no evidence the progressives are out there operating to derail the third way, let alone the REPUBLICANS. How did the Republicans win even more of Congress if the progressives were out there operating?

[sabrina 1]

192. I just explained to you what Progressives were doing. They voted around the country for ISSUES

at their local levels and WON. THAT is what concerns them, the ISSUES they got passed that they know will never pass in DC. So Progressives have changed tactics now, they are rebuilding the party from the ground up, finding candidates THEY want for national office, seeing so few at that level now.

Who chooses the Presidential Candidates?? I think voters fully understand how that has been done now. And now, especially the young, are DOING something about it.

The turnout WAS low, for national elections, one of the lowest ever. Do you know why it was so low? Instead of whining on the internet it would be a whole lot of better of people looked at what happened and rather than doing WHAT CONTRIBUTED TO IT, refusing to listen to voters, they might stop and think for a while and maybe say to themselves 'you know attacking voters really is ridiculous, we ought to be trying to find out what they want'. But I guess it's easier to attack rather than listen and so long as that is the Campaign Strategy, the results at the National Level will remain the same or worse.

Meantime I am a whole lot more enthusiastic about working locally to help find and support Dem candidates who actually support issues that the people support, with their votes and eventually sending them to DC to replace the Corporate funded candidates who are so out of touch with the people they don't have a clue, or any interest, in what the voters want and will voted for.

[cascadiance]

206. Here in Oregon where we had HIGH 70% vote by mail turnout, Dems and progressives were heard!

And we were far more successful at the state level in:

1) Voting in progressive senator Jeff Merkley by a substantial margin!
2) Reelecting Democratic governor Kitzhaber despite problems his fiance was having in the press the last few weeks.
3) Passing marijuana legalization.
4) Completely shutting down 1% funded "Top two" primary measure to the point it was the worst performing measure on the ballot.
5) increasing our seats in both the state senate and legislature. One state senate race is really close now and Dem is slightly ahead, and if he retains that lead, we'll have picked up two seats to make Democratic majority margin 18-12 instead of 16-14.
6) Coming closer than any state has with votes still being close in passing GMO labeling bill, that had the most spent by opposition to it of any state ballot measure in history.

When voters are motivated and come out to support progressive issues and candidates, and they are not impeded by voter suppression built in to one's election system, we get the progressive Democratic Party vote out.

[Art_from_Ark]

229. Must be nice

[TheKentuckian]

165. The website is of little concern, chemotherapy to remove them from control of the party is at issue.

If I cared overly about purging from my site experience, I'd start clicking the ignore button.

[LondonReign2]

129. So you support the Third Way policies then?

[ReRe]

119. Definition here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025778882

[Erose999]

125. They used to be called "Republicans," before that brand was de-valued by televangelists, gun nuts, &

the John Birch Society.

[Erose999]

126. WHO Third Way is, is just as important as "what" third way is...

?1386110745

Any questions?

[treestar]

166. Anyone with any practical bone in their body

The slightest whiff of trying to get something real done, and not agreeing that the way to a progressive country is simply for the Democrats to run the most progressive candidates they can in every state, and those people will win because their message is so compelling, right wingers will embrace it immediately.

It is up to the candidates, not the people. If you think the voters are anything but people who should be properly manipulated with the right words, you are a third way shill.

[whatchamacallit]

8. I say if we're going to lose

let's lose with dignity.

[polichick]

9. It will be interesting to see what Bernie Sanders does now...

Will he run as a Dem in this climate, decide that the Dems are worthless, or what?

[mmonk]

11. Good question. Running as an independent

would give his message more punch but might prohibit him from debates

[polichick]

14. Can't wait to hear his take on things.

[woo me with science]

24. Me, too.

[KingCharlemagne]

16. How well or poorly did Hillary's slate do last night? (By 'slate,' I mean the ones she

campaigned for). If that slate did poorly -- as my gut tells me is the case -- then Sanders should change his party registration to Dem and take it to Hillary. She's just broadcast her vulnerability in a major way or at least her lack of coattails.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

21. Hillary campaigned for Hagan (NC).

That didn't turn out too well.

[KingCharlemagne]

22. Bernie Sanders' decision about whether to run in the Dem primaries or run

as an Indie was made for him last night. The Hillary slate went down in flames. She has no lock on the base and has now earned herself a vigorous primary challenge should she choose to run.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

147. I don't think she has a lock, but many do.

I won't lift a finger for her, but I would for Sanders or even Warren. Marylanders elected a Republican governor (high taxes and crappy rollout of Obamacare?), so I'm wondering how O'Malley would fare at the national level.

How Hogan won: Democrats stayed home in city, key counties

....

Turnout plummeted in Baltimore city and Montgomery and Prince George's counties to the lowest levels in the state. In majority-African-American Baltimore and Prince George's, fewer than 40 percent of voters turned out to cast ballots in Democrat Anthony G. Brown's quest to be Maryland's first African-American governor.

....

To counter Hogan's case that Maryland is overtaxed and its business climate is abysmal, Brown barely mounted a defense of the O'Malley administration's record. Critics said his program at times sounded like "me too" — as when he pledged not to raise taxes and said it would be a top priority to make the state's business climate the best in the nation.

Instead of engaging Hogan on the economy, Brown's campaign attempted to turn voters' attention to social issues — trying in millions of dollars' worth of negative ads to portray Hogan as a radical conservative on abortion, birth control and guns. Hogan countered by pledging not to roll back any of those laws.

Baltimore Del. Curt Anderson said he and several other Democratic lawmakers tried to persuade Brown to pursue a positive strategy.

....

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/campaign-2014/bs-md-how-hogan-won-20141105-story.html

[treestar]

177. It wouldn't have been impossible for Bernie and Elizabeth Warren to stump for Kay Hagan

If only they had done that, Kay Hagan would have won.

[KoKo]

110. Bill filled an 8,000 person Stadium Rally Hagan 3 days before Election

She lost.

But she was ahead in numbers from the Early Vote tallies we just got in...and Election Day was when her numbers started to tank. Bill's Rally seemed to turn out the RW Voters in backlash since Early Voters outnumbered the Election Day Voters who seemed to vote Repub on the tickets. He might have cost her the election.

This is from the NC Board of Election's Released numbers. We are going over the Stats now to find correlation of Early Vote vs. Election Day so that we can protect and extend the Early Voting for the future. Our Repub Governor and his crew that invaded the State in 2012 shortened the Early Vote.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

146. I appreciate you going over the stats and look forward to seeing them posted.

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I haven't had a chance due to my work schedule, but am off three days next week and look forward to catching up on all of this!

[KoKo]

148. For Weekend Read. "How the Clintons' Candidaes Did (not well)

How the Clintons’ candidates did (not well)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2014-elections-clinton-candidates-112559.html

Bill and Hillary Clinton were the most sought-after surrogates on the campaign trail this cycle — crisscrossing the country to stump for Democrats in places where President Barack Obama couldn’t.

They flew into red states to stump for vulnerable Democrats, aided candidates from their home states and campaigned for family friends, former aides and other longtime confidants. Their itineraries included several stops in the politically significant states of Iowa and New Hampshire for Democrats in competitive Senate and House races.

But not even the Clintons’ political star power could spare Democrats from Tuesday’s bloodbath. Just 22 candidates backed by either Clinton won, compared with 32 who lost. One race will go into a December runoff, and three races had yet to be called as of Wednesday afternoon.

The Clintons began election night with two losses on their midterm scorecard already: In May, Marjorie Margolies, mother-in-law of daughter Chelsea, fell short in a House Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. And in March, Bill Clinton recorded a robocall in Florida for Democrat Alex Sink, who ultimately lost in a special election to Republican David Jolly.

—Pete Aguilar (California): No call

—Aimee Belgard (New Jersey): Loss

—Rep. Ami Bera (California): No call

—Erin Bilbray (Nevada): Loss

—Rep. Tim Bishop (New York): Loss

—Rep. Julia Brownley (California): No call

—Bonnie Watson Coleman (New Jersey): Win

—Sean Eldridge (New York): Loss

—Rep. John Garamendi (California): Win

—Gwen Graham (Florida): Win

—Patrick Henry Hays (Arkansas): Loss

—Rep. Steven Horsford (Nevada): Loss

—Rep. Ann McLane Kuster (New Hampshire): Win

—Mark Lester (Alabama): Loss

—Rep. Nita Lowey (New York): Win

—Rep. Dan Maffei (New York): Loss

—Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (New York): Win

—Marjorie Margolies (Pennsylvania): Loss in primary

—Rep. Patrick Murphy (Florida): Win

—Rep. Charles Rangel (New York): Win

—Domenic Recchia (New York): Loss

—Kathleen Rice (New York): Win

—Martha Robertson (New York): Loss

—Andrew Romanoff (Colorado): Loss

—Rep. Raul Ruiz (California): Win

—Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire): Loss

—Alex Sink (Florida): Loss in March special election

—Rep. Dina Titus (Nevada): Win

—James Lee Witt (Arkansas): Loss

—Aaron Woolf (New York): Loss

Senate races

Red-state Democrats fled from Obama but eagerly counted on Clintons to come to their rescue.

Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky — whose father, Jerry Lundergan, is a Clinton family friend — was an early beneficiary of the Clintons’ political largesse. As was Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a longtime friend for whom Bill Clinton hosted a fundraiser in June.

In the final weeks of the campaign, nearly every endangered Democrat brought the Clintons along on the stump — from Kay Hagan in North Carolina to Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, from Mark Udall in Colorado to Mark Pryor in Arkansas. But it was an overwhelming wipeout. Of the Clinton-backed candidates in the closest Senate races, only Shaheen hung on, while Landrieu was headed to a runoff.

—Bruce Braley (Iowa): Loss

—Sen. Dick Durbin (Illinois): Win

—Sen. Al Franken (Minnesota): Win

—Alison Lundergan Grimes (Kentucky): Loss

—Sen. Kay Hagan (North Carolina): Loss

—Sen. Mary Landrieu (Louisiana): Advances to runoff

—Michelle Nunn (Georgia): Loss

—Gary Peters (Michigan): Win

—Sen. Mark Pryor (Arkansas): Loss

—Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire): Win

—Sen. Mark Udall (Colorado): Loss

Governor races

The Clintons also doled out their political star power in key gubernatorial battles nationwide — races that were among the Democrats’ few bright spots on election night.

Democrat Tom Wolf — for whom both Clintons campaigned in October — soundly defeated sitting Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. The Clintons also rallied on behalf of Democratic candidates in Wisconsin and Florida who mounted tough challenges to GOP incumbent governors but ultimately lost.

Bill Clinton was even the campaign closer for Democrat Charlie Crist in Florida — appearing at a get-out-the-vote rally for him on Monday.

—Anthony Brown (Maryland): Loss

—Mary Burke (Wisconsin): Loss

—Martha Coakley (Massachusetts): Loss

—Charlie Crist (Florida): Loss

—Gov. Andrew Cuomo (New York): Win

—Wendy Davis (Texas): Loss

—Gov. Mark Dayton (Minnesota): Win

—Fred DuVal (Arizona): Loss

—Gov. Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire): Win

—Gov. John Hickenlooper (Colorado): Win

—Gov. Dannel Malloy (Connecticut): Win

—Mike Michaud (Maine): Loss

—Pat Quinn (Illinois): Loss

—Gina Raimondo (Rhode Island): Win

—Mike Ross (Arkansas): Loss

—Mark Schauer (Michigan): Loss

—Tom Wolf (Pennsylvania): Win

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2014-elections-clinton-candidates-112559.html#ixzz3IR6eD0GG

[WorseBeforeBetter]

149. Thanks. I've mostly been reading the N&O, WRAL, WaPo and the Baltimore Sun...

but will definitely dig deeper.

[KoKo]

152. That article doesn't mention he was in Georgia and NC Friday

before the Tuesday Election. Stumping for Nunn in GA and Hagan in NC.....

Both Lost. I worry his appearance brought back memories of Monica.....in these Southern States with the RW'ers and even Dems who remember what we all went through Defending Bill...when it turned out there REALLY WAS.......A BLUE DRESS...Sadly.

I know his Star Power is back in the North East with the Wall Street Crowd..but, think they miscalculated thinking how this would go over in the South and other parts of the Country.

Bill's behavior didn't appeal to many women in areas of the South who are Dem voters and that he was campaigning in GA, NC and even Louisiana (which will go to runoff) for Female Candidates might have backfired at the last minute with undecided voters.

There's some disconnect there that might carry forward to 2016 for the Hillary inevitable.
Hillary (for female vote who saw her as victim of Bill's indiscretions) probably did well supporting female candidates early on...but, sending Bill out at the last minute might have caused some damage in reminding female voters who remembered that might have been better left alone down the Memory Hole?

[woo me with science]

216. Great post. Thank you.

[ReRe]

120. And Alison Grimes :-( n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

103. She was all over Grimes in Kentucky

<---- All that needs to be said there.

[pa28]

10. They've had it their way for 20 years and they've driven the party into the ground.

Time for them to sit down.

[TBF]

41. Just as they were paid to do ...

mission complete for the Koch Bros.

[woo me with science]

107. +10000 Third Way=Wall Street infiltration of the Democratic Party

Third Way was NEVER a grass roots phenomenon.

The Third Way is and has always been a corporate-bankrolled, deliberate infiltration of the party with the goal of transferring the party's representation and policy agenda from the people to corporate interests. They are working against the people.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[Maedhros]

76. Correction: Time for them to SIT DOWN and SHUT UP! [n/t]

[kentuck]

13. There is no consensus.

About anything, at this time.

[woo me with science]

15. K&R

[whereisjustice]

17. Agree, they seem to have incredible influence on banning posts though...

I have some constantly following me around and alerting my posts in an effort to have me banned. It's disturbing because it goes well beyond would would be considered normal for a healthy individual.

For sure, there's better avenues for people to seek the compassionate help and attention they need. Relying on a message board for your self esteem isn't good.

I think the best way to handle these people (who could just be Republicans trying to stifle good ideas and a necessary conversation needed for improvement) is to stick together and support each other.

If they continue abusing posters with personal attacks, make a note, start collecting the data and as you say just ignore.

Their transparent hostility and bad behavior is suppressing intelligent and necessary conversations (at best) and suppressing votes (at worst). These guys are completely reckless and making a mockery of what should be a place for good ideas about fixing a very broken political party. Hell, some of them, by their own admission, don't even vote because they aren't from the US!

[Jamastiene]

27. Maybe mass ignore is a good idea.

It would make DU much more readable and be much easier to have actual conversations without the belittling and the verbal abuse from them.

[Maedhros]

51. I have placed on my ignore list every one of them that I can identify.

You'd be surprised how much more grown-up and reasonable DU becomes once you cut out their juvenile bleating.

[sendero]

99. I started...

... using Ignore after years of thinking it was somehow breaking the rules. I got rid of a certain "pro" that posted incessantly but could not produce a single coherent thought. I got rid of every ObamaBot, people who could not brook the slightest most carefully worded criticism of the president. I find it funny that so much of the sentiment here is now where I was 4 years ago.

And I find the forum much more useful and helpful without listening to those who simply cannot face reality no matter how in their face it is.

To be sure, I'm certain I'm on many folks' Ignore list also. And that is cool. Different strokes and all, but I have no more patience for people who are fine with the Democratic party becoming Republican Lite.

[grahamhgreen]

19. Kick

[Jamastiene]

26. Absolutely.

It should have been done starting about 6 years ago when they infiltrated the party in such heavy numbers. Warning bells went off for some of us, but it took lots of others a lot longer to wake up and hear those bells. Maybe now, those who still don't know what to think will realize the 3rd way crap has ruined the country and wake up and hear the alarms. It is time to take the party back.

[woo me with science]

35. [phone]

[SomethingFishy]

58. They won't...

You are 100% correct, this should have been stopped at the root. However, the 3rd way has not only been welcomed, but vigorously defended at every turn.
This year was my first putting people on ignore after 10 years at DU(I used to be Walldude back in the day). I just couldn't take the venomous defense of people and policies that are killing the middle class in this country. The days of identifying a liberal by the "D" next to their name are long gone.

After reading Matt Tiabbi's article today I remember the vitriol that was tossed at me for claiming that Eric Holder's resignation was a good thing. Today my opinions were validated.. once again..

I don't see the "faithful" changing their tune anytime soon. I get the feeling that they aren't suffering enough yet.

[ReRe]

122. I've been waiting for apologies...

... from them on the AG Eric Holder thing. Crickets. I need to face it. They are Republicans and will never apologize or admit anything. A bit of the "Good-Ole-Boy."

[peacebird]

201. [phone]

[wyldwolf]

28. So when are you going to run, Brent? Or are you suggesting we should cancel elections...

... and appoint progressive-approved leaders?

[frylock]

60. binary thinking is a hallmark of the conservative mind

[wyldwolf]

61. Planning a revolution with no plan is the hallmark of a 'prooogresssiiiveee' mind

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. My favorite story...

We were reading our term papers in a graduate level Political Theory class. There was this Iranian guy who said American representative government is a sham but offered nothing to replace it with. The professor, a garden variety liberal like almost every professor I ever had, mildly criticized him. I jokingly said "It's a start". He said " No, it's the end." He was prophetic.

[frylock]

72. yours is the only post here to bring up revolution..

either comply with capitulating centrist dems, or start a revolution. no grey area in the world of the conservative. binary thinking.

[wyldwolf]

73. Right. I should have directly quoted the OP and said 'radical change.' LOL.

Yet, still, no answer as to how such change will come about.

Oh, whining I guess.

[frylock]

74. wonderful GOTV effort you're putting forth here..

it should really appeal to those disenchanted millennials that stayed home on Tuesday. keep up the good work!

[wyldwolf]

75. I've not put forth anything. I've asked how the OP's radical change will be put forth.

An army of dudes in black Che t-shirts and a supply of cheetos? Or Ssomething no 'progressive' movement has ever been able to do - organize? No, my guess is you'll sit on DU for the next two years crying.

[frylock]

78. who told you the plan?

[Union Scribe]

85. "I've not put forth anything." No shit there. nt

[wyldwolf]

93. So much diversion from a simple question.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

150. I do believe we're being exhorted to ignore people like you.

I agree with the notion--there's no gain to be had in listening to the center right anymore. This was a courtesy notification. Good evening.

[wyldwolf]

158. So BrentSpeak is your fearless leader. The strong silent type. LOL. Good luck!

[AgingAmerican]

189. So stopping a non Democratic, right wing Republian entity from controlling the party leadership

is, "Radical Change"?

Why are you so adamant that the Third Way stay in control of the party? Is 'an army of dudes in black Che t-shirts and a supply of cheetos' the only possible alternative to the Third Way in your mind? When you talk like that you sound like that Savage Nation guy.

[wyldwolf]

190. Ask the OP.

[Union Scribe]

84. We need more people like you talking to voters

about how they're stupid baby dumb dumb heads if they don't like the party establishment. We're sure to win next time running the same brand of politician with your winning rhetoric behind them.

[wyldwolf]

94. So much diversion from a simple question

Perhaps that is part of the 'radical change.'

[LondonReign2]

130. I love how so-called Democrats like you try to make Progressive

a derogatory term.

You know how Rush Limbaugh likes to use Liberal as a derogatory term? Yup, just like that.

[MannyGoldstein]

179. Either accept the status quo, run ourselves, or cancel elections

Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2014, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

That would be the only three logical options.

Point: wyldwolf!!!

Regards,

TWM

[wyldwolf]

180. That's right find your Bernie Sanders army and run them

Is there any other way to get what you want Manny?

[MannyGoldstein]

181. So now you're proposing a fourth option?

I'll have mull that one over.

[fredamae]

29. DCCC Chair Isreal Stepping Down

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/06/rep-steve-israel-is-stepping-down-as-dccc-chair/

Some Third Way Members:
http://www.thirdway.org/about

[hedgehog]

31. "Shills" is exactly right! Until yesterday, I thought 3rd Way and DLC Democrats were just

Baby Boomers who forgot where they came from. It was here on DU yesterday that I learned of the Wall Street and Kock Brothers money backing these groups.

[woo me with science]

45. +1 We live in a propaganda state,

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2014, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

just as surely have citizens in every other state that has gone authoritarian. These corporatists are working on nothing less than dismantling democracy.

Criminals who build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.



of what we are really dealing with:

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

[Feral Child]

32. K&R n/t

[Z_California]

33. I highly recommend the "Ignore" function

My daily browse of DU is so much less frustrating now that I've ignored most of the 3rd way shills. Don't fight 'em, ignore 'em.

[Maedhros]

52. Ignoring them is infinitely preferable to arguing with them.

They want the negative attention - they thrive on it. The best way to handle them is to let them sneer into the void...

[woo me with science]

83. +1

It allows them to



1. keep liberals batting off corporate talking points instead of spending time discussing important information or even (gasp) organizing

2. pollute entire threads with diversion, distortion, baiting, smear, and never-ending arguments so that important points are lost in all the garbage

3. bait and smear liberals, and also goad liberals into responding in kind so posts can be hidden

[Maedhros]

86. And, honestly, just interacting with these people

shaves points off one's IQ, just by exposure to their inanity.

[woo me with science]

88. Good gawd, yes.

You're better off eating lead paint.

[L0oniX]

112. I just laugh at em.

[Mnpaul]

220. They are quite amusing

they seem to have limited talking points. They keep repeating the same nonsense over and over even if it fails every time.

[Aerows]

34. The time for being "moderate"

is over. When your opponents aren't moderate, you can't be either.

[arcane1]

49. Exactly!

[laundry_queen]

154. Bingo

That's what so many centrist dems just don't realize. You need a counter balance or else the whole spectrum ends up moving. Poli sci 101.

[Autumn]

36. Thank you for this OP. Very thought provoking and well

worth keeping it in mind.

[SidDithers]

37. DU rec...nt

Sid

[L0oniX]

113. You rec'd this ??? That has to be a mistake.

[msanthrope]

145. No, it was no mistake. This thread is chockful of awesome. nt

[HuckleB]

38. That's fine and dandy, but terms like shill and toxic are meaningless.

They're meant to dismiss without knowledge and to create fear.

Please find words that mean something.

[hedgehog]

46. I think in this case, "shill" is the operative noun rather than a pejorative -

“the majority” of Third Way’s donor support comes from the group’s board of trustees, most of whom are from the finance sector."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177569/third-way-majority-our-financial-support-wall-street-business-executives

Among the DLC's biggest benefactors last year (contributions of between $50,000 and $100,000) were ARCO, Chevron and the drug giant Merck. Other big underwriters include Du Pont, Microsoft and Philip Morris (which has kicked in $500,000 since Lieberman became DLC chairman). There is no evidence that the DLC has trimmed policies to accommodate its patrons, but some contributors say the money has helped ensure an open door to Lieberman. "We've been able to have a dialogue with the senator and his staff," said Jay Rosser, spokesman for another DLC benefactor, Koch Industries, an oil-pipeline firm that is also a big GOP donor.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Democratic_Leadership_Council

[HuckleB]

66. That doesn't its valid against individuals.

Sourcewatch is a crap site, BTW.

[Zorra]

48. Shill is a perfectly suitable and accurate word, as used in the OP:

"an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."

[woo me with science]

59. [phone]

[HuckleB]

67. It's a baseless ad hominem attack.

All of your fellow humans deserve better treatment than that.

[Zorra]

71. That's what they all say.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025770864

[Rex]

39. Putting profit above principles and party nearly destroyed us this last election.

We don't need a republican-lite side of the party. I've already seen 3rd Wayers back pedaling like crazy, pretending the party cannot survive without them.

Their fleeing from the POTUS was embarrassing and didn't help convince people to show up and vote. IMO, it did just the opposite.

[brentspeak]

43. I'm not really calling out the Dem candidates as much

as I am the particular people who run the DNC, DCCC, etc., as well as the people behind the scenes who provide propaganda on behalf of the New Democrats.

And Obama richly deserves criticism: his presidency has been a debacle for the Democrats, with worse to come. The "3rd Way shills" my OP refers to those who are Obama's biggest supporters for his Republican-lite actions.

[Rex]

44. We need a focused, cohesive message next time that promotes growth

sustainability and a stronger social safety net for one and all. Running away from your leader, IMO, makes the party look weak and divided imo.

[KoKo]

114. +1....Recommend

[woo me with science]

42. kick

[AtomicKitten]

47. I would love to purge the party of those assclowns.

[yurbud]

50. it was easy to spot them since they didn't change their talking points from the Bush era

they should have at least freshened their cookie cutter responses to make them harder to notice for a few days in honor of the change in personnel in the White House.

[rhett o rick]

53. I've got most on ignore. nm

[Cosmic Kitten]

55. Don't ignore a problem, deconstruct it.

If you want to strengthen oneself
against unwanted influence you need
to build your immune system.

Ignoring something allows it to metastasize.
Don't argue.
Deconstruct the techniques.
Knowledge is immunization!

[Phlem]

57. Amen Brother.

Been saying the same thing myself.

[Odin2005]

62. The Third Way people are Republican agents and should be tombstoned.

[Andy823]

68. Let me guess

The "third way people" would be anyone that does not agree with your way of thinking, right?

[LostInAnomie]

80. +1

[Bobbie Jo]

82. That would be my best guess

Quite the boogieman they've constructed here. I never even heard of this "third way" nonsense outside of DU.

Best I can tell, if you're not on the torch and pitchfork bandwagon you're a card-carrying "third wayer," and you must be IGNORED!!11

Tag 'em and bag 'em. The batshit gets deeper here by the day.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Interestingly, 3rd-Wayers are to be purged from the Democratic Party; but, ...

"stand with randians", are not mentioned at all ... though, arguably, far more destructive to tradition Democratic values.

I wonder if that's just a coincidence?

[cascadiance]

207. Some people confuse standing up for rights of privacy from the NSA as being "Randian"...

... just because we get thrown out the line that Glen Greenwald and Edward Snowden are libertarians...

There are things that we as TRADITIONAL Democrats have in common with the Libertarian party, which are things like:
- Believing that the "war on drugs" (particularly marijuana) has failed just as badly as alcohol prohibition failed in its day, and needs to be replaced with regulation and medical treatment rather than carting off many minorities and other oppressed members off to private prisons that feed the prison industrial complex that probably also bankrolls the third way and Republicans in general.
- Staying out of foreign wars as much as possible and not let the military industrial complex be pushing us in to them.
- Protecting our rights of privacy in cyberspace from domestic spying, etc.
- a bit more freedom for people not to have the state monitor and penalize their consensual sexual activities that don't present a health risk to us.

Now, if we have much more in common than that list, it's not very much. I certainly don't like what Libertarians have stood for in terms of regulation of the corporate sector, taxation, and a number of other parts of their agenda which in many respects are worse than the rest of the Republicans. But if we work together on traditional stances (that sometimes third wayers have a hard time understanding why we support this above list), we can maybe get some of these issues dealt with the coming two years AND split apart the Republican Party, AND hurt many of the 1%ers and Republicans agendas in these areas.

If you like domestic spying on us, like prohibition of drugs, like having more wars, etc. then I would submit that you are a bit confused as to what traditional Democratic values are.

[taught_me_patience]

121. I've been on DU since 2004 and have over 4000 posts

and I had no idea what "third-way" was until yesterday (see my post upthread). Third-way seems to be the new boogyman destroying the democratic party. Sadly, third-way is not close to the reason why dems lost.

[laundry_queen]

155. I've been here since 2004 and I've known what the third-way was

since the first month. It's not new to those of us who actually pay attention.

[treestar]

164. Republican agents would discourage Democrats

Guess who does that?

[TheKentuckian]

169. What they do is push their failed ideology at all times, attack and mock liberals, exploit

and sell off the commons, back military and clandestine adventures for profits, work tirelessly to hobble and repeal civil liberties, push destructive trade, suck the balls of the extraction industry, relentlessly wipe and dangle for Wall Street, and to slice and dice the safety net.

[woo me with science]

185. [phone]

[AgingAmerican]

182. The Third Way neither encourage or discourage

Their goal is to control the leadership and direction of the party and make it right wing.

[MissDeeds]

98. I noticed that

and promptly hit "ignore". Within the course of 15 minutes, my ignore list went from 0 to 3. That's saying a lot since I haven't had anyone on ignore in months.

[Bobbie Jo]

100. Stay classy, new comer.

999 too many, IMO....

[LostInAnomie]

91. Break out the tin-foil everyone!

?2

[noiretextatique]

221. nice try, but no dice

the third way is a destructive force against traditional democratic values of the kind president Truman stated so clearly...in 1948.

[ucrdem]

92. "with extreme prejudice"

[Enthusiast]

95. They. Are. Infiltrators.

[MissDeeds]

96. Excellent post!

I could not agree more!

K&R

[PowerToThePeople]

97. k&r. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

102. Kick nt

[MuseRider]

105. Well said brentspeak!

I have finally decided to use the ignore function the way it was meant to be used. Not for stopping myself from certain disaster and using it for cooling off but for ignoring all those that fit your description. I left this place because I could not stand not having actual conversations with liberals. The bots and the 3rd way are more than annoying to me, enough so that I don't even want to argue with them. It became like arguing with the christian homophobes in Kansas.

I think I will try to step back in, use that function so that I can actually discuss things without the childishness of "rock star" politics and 3rd way destruction.

The good part was some of them would leave until about 6 months before and a few months after every election. Why I ever bothered with their nonsense is more than I can explain.

[Teamster Jeff]

106. kick and rec nm

[woo me with science]

108. An important reminder:

of what we are really dealing with:

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

[L0oniX]

115. ^^^THIS^^^

[Zorra]

124. Rats, that darn graphic again, all those nice investment bankers on Third Way Board of Trustees!

"Gosh, Toto, do you think this is somehow significant, maybe some indication that the function of the Third Way is as a tool to control and neutralize the Democratic Party?

Do you think the Third Way really has so much money behind them, that they can easily afford to pay to spread Wall St. 1% propaganda?

[woo me with science]

163. I am sure the Third Way are very relieved

that their vote-suppression efforts - those "accept doom" emails through the DCCC and the relentless attacks on the base - have been so successful.

Obama's TPP, new austerity, and new wars should put things over the top so we get a Republican president in 2016. And it will happen just in time for them.

Just as the country finally begins to understand that we really *are* an oligarchy and both parties are working for the same corporate agenda, the Third Way will be able to change back into their "passionate-but-conveniently-ineffectual-liberal" costumes. They will wail along with us about those evil Republicans, and we can all feel warm and fuzzy about our party again.

Oh, we'll still be lurching into fascism, but the important thing is that Dems will be consistently SAYING the right things again, and looking like the firebrand populist party we need them to be.

And the people will be reassured that we really do still have a Democracy, we can stop all this silly talk about oligarchy and needing fundamental change and such, and we can all go home and watch "Hunger Games" and grouse because our only problem will be that we need to get Republicans out of office and put the Third Way Democrats back.

[True Blue Door]

109. Were you saying this during the primaries?

That's when it's actually helpful.

[JoePhilly]

116. Ironially, this line of argument is most prominent right before the actual elections.

And right after them.

The rest of the time is spent complaining about whoever we actually elected.

[LondonReign2]

131. Derp

[laundry_queen]

156. IKR?

After some of the comments in this thread, I'm beginning to see the issue. Too many people are so busy posting their own opinions on DU they neglect to read anything at all on this site. This was a prominent subject during the '08 primaries.

[TheKentuckian]

188. They know, pretending otherwise allows the dissemination of lame talking points so they just lie.

[TheKentuckian]

170. Relentlessly, there is no pause.

[woo me with science]

118. kick

[Peacetrain]

127. So what are you?

I am a Democrat.. proud and strong for over 40 years.. I do not exclude anyone who will support our platform..and what the heck is third way people? are you talking about the Clintons and their agenda.. Gore is he a third way.. uhhh.. is Dean?? President Obama.. or VP Biden.. just who are you wanting to ignore and call infiltrators and run out of the party..(By the way no one is running anyone out of the party who supports the platform..they are Democrats..)

[Bobbie Jo]

134. Good question

But the way these posts read, it sounds like they're talking about DU'ers. That's pretty damn presumptuous, IMO.....

Been here since '06 myself, a liberal all my life, and a voting Democrat since 1982.

Seems like some kind of twisted witch hunt to me.

[Peacetrain]

135. There is a definite push to oust people...

and purges are what dictatorships do..not Democracies..

[wyldwolf]

160. me thinks the ones calling for purges will be the ones purged.

[Number23]

183. Oh, that would be lovely

[msanthrope]

186. That's generally how its gone...those that call for orthodoxy

the loudest out themselves and get themselves banned.

[Faux pas]

133. Kickin'

[merrily]

137. Harry Truman thought similarly:

Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action

May 17, 1952

General Biddle and distinguished guests:

Your President has put me in a very embarrassing position. You know, it has been remarked before historically "O that mine enemy would write a book." Sometimes it's bad for your friends to write books.

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

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

You helped to hang the record of the 80th Congress around the neck of the Republican Party--and I finished the job. You held firm against the fanatical and misguided attacks of the Wallace movement. And since 1948, you have been going down the line for policies and programs in the interest of the people and in fulfillment of the highest values we cherish in this Republic. I congratulate you on all the effective work you have done for the cause of liberal government.

Now then I am going to say something to you that I think maybe will please you a little bit.

Of course, there was a time when it might not have been so pleasant for me to meet with the ADA. I understand that 4 years ago-along about this time--some of the leaders of ADA were engaged in rather wild fancies about the Presidential nomination.

I am told there was a little poem that gained some currency in ADA circles in those days, and it went like this:

"Between the Taft and the Dewey,
When defeat is beginning to lower,
Comes a pause in the ADA's occupation,
That is known as the Eisenhower."

You know, the peculiar part about it was that you were a young political organization and you had not studied the history of conventions. A President of the United States, when he desires and when he wants to be nominated, there isn't anybody in the world can keep him from being nominated. The same thing is true when he doesn't want to be nominated.

I doubt if you will be having any pauses for that particular purpose this year.

In spite of the various notions about the nomination in 1948, the outcome of the election that year pleased all of us here--particularly me, and it astonished a great many people. It simply astonished a great many people. Mark Twain said, in an inscription I have always had on my desk, "Always do right. It will please some people, and astonish the rest." Well, that's what we did in 1948. We astonished the pollsters and the sabotage press, and the opposition candidates--Republican, crackpot, and Dixiecrat. The results were good for the country, even though they set back the science of political forecasting for a full generation. I hope it set them back forever.

You remember way back--you are too young for that--you know what happened to the Literary Digest in a certain poll. I like to remember Elmo Roper in his September spasm in which he said no more polls were necessary, Dewey would be the next President, there really wasn't any use to hold an election in November. He has been apologizing about that ever since, and trying to get his poll back.

Now the time has rolled around again when you folks have the problem of trying to pick and choose a candidate to support. You are not the only ones who have that problem, and I assure you I am fully aware that it can be a very perplexing problem indeed.

But we are lucky in having a number of good presidential candidates in the field, and some of them are here tonight. I am sure that the ADA will find a candidate who expresses in his philosophy and in his record the things that this organization stands for. Obviously, such a man would have to be a Democrat.

Because this is an election year, I would like to talk to you a little bit about politics. I know you are a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization. I heard it carefully analyzed here just a minute ago--at least, I have heard that you have some Republicans among your membership, and I am sure that at one time it was true. I don't know whether it is now or not.

I want to ask these Republicans who are in the ADA not to include themselves in any remarks I am about to make about the Republican Party. When I talk about the Republican Party here tonight, I mean the dinosaur wing of the Republican Party-which unfortunately seems to be in control of that party. They are living in 1896 and 1920. They are made up of the Republicans of 1896 and 1920, under William McKinley and Warren G. Harding.

The first thing I will say about the Republican Party, believe it or not, is an expression of gratitude. I want to thank them for the way they help the Democrats win elections. Under the liberal policies of the Democratic administration, our country has grown strong and prosperous. And this has been true for such a long time now that people tend to forget what things were like under the Republicans. They criticize the mistakes the Democrats make, but they take for granted all the benefits we have brought them. Every 4 years it begins to look as if the people had forgotten what a Republican administration would mean to the country. And the Republicans go around convincing themselves that they cannot possibly lose the presidential election. I have heard it happen 4 times.

But it is just at this point, when things look darkest for the Democrats, that you can count on the Republicans to do something that will save the day--that is, it will save the day for us. You can always count on the Republicans, in an election year, to remind the people of what the Republican Party really stands for. You can always count on them to make it perfectly clear before the campaign is over that the Republican Party is the party of big business, and that they would like to turn the country back to the big corporations and the big bankers in New York to run it as they see fit. They are just not going to do it.

Just leave them alone, and the Republicans will manage to scare the daylights out of the farmer and the wage earner and the average American citizen. They always do that.

I had the best time I ever had in my life going up and down this country, telling the people the truth, and when they found out what the truth was, you know what they did. And I am here to say to you that when a man in politics, if he is a leader. has the right ideas, the people are willing to listen to what he has to say. It is a matter of salesmanship.

And that's the reason the pollsters are wrong, whenever you have a candidate who will go out and say what is good for the people--they will believe him; but they go down the street and meet the first three or four people, and ask them who you are for and why you are for him. "Oh," they say, "I'm for this fellow. Of course some article in the paper said this or that about him." And they don't know anything about them, really. That is really what makes leadership in politics. You have got to go out and sell yourself, and what you stand for. And we are going to get a candidate like that, and he is going to win.

Now, the Republicans in 1948, in that 80th Congress of theirs, they went after organized labor with their Taft-Hartley law. They went after all wage earners by their attacks on the social security program. They went after the farmer by tampering with price supports and by failing to provide grain storage.

This year they are at it again. The Republicans think they have been so successful with their campaign of smears and character assassination that they have the Democrats on the run. And they just can't restrain themselves enough to hide their true colors until after the election. They are too impatient. First one way and then another they are giving themselves away. Take this steel dispute.

I am not going to talk about constitutional issues here tonight; they are before the Supreme Court. I just want to bring out a few facts about the economics of this dispute in the steel industry.

The steelworkers came in before a Government agency and proved that they were entitled to some wage increases. It was all perfectly fair, clear, and aboveboard. You can look at the figures and you can look at the record and see for yourself.

And then it was the turn of the steel companies. They were asked to agree to fair and reasonable wage increases and to come in and submit their case for price increases, if they needed any. But would they do that? Not at all.

Their profits, whatever yardstick you want to use, have been running close to record levels. I think that is the reason why they don't want to submit their case for consideration on its merits. They refuse to abide by the rules of our stabilization program. They just come out flatly and say that the Government has to give them a big price increase, or else. And I think they want a strike.

Now the Republican leadership didn't have to get mixed up in that fracas at all. The Republican leaders could have taken a calm, judicious attitude and weighed both sides and decided where the merits lie. But that is not the way the Republican leaders act; it never is--thank goodness.

They rushed into the fray at once. They took it up in Congress, and they made speeches up and down the Nation. They demanded four or five new investigations. They threatened to wreck price control, and they're doing their best to do it. And what is the purpose of all this? The purpose is to preserve high profits for the steel companies and prevent wage increases for the steelworkers.

That shows exactly where the Old Guard stands. It shows that their hearts lie with the corporations and not with the working people. It proves that the old Republican leopard hasn't changed a single spot. It ought to serve as a big, glaring danger sign to the voters of this country of what to expect if they turn the administration of the country over to the Republicans who are now in control of that party.

I am glad to say that there were a few Republicans in Congress who did not join in the hue and cry against the steelworkers. Some of them looked at the facts and drew very different conclusions. And one of them did a fine, courageous job of presenting the facts on the Senate floor. That was Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon.

The main body of the Republican leaders are doing just what they do every election year. They are making it good and plain to the American people that so far as domestic policies are concerned, the Republican Party is the party of reaction and the party of special privilege--just as I proved in 1948, and the people believed me; and they will yet.

And they are keeping pace in the field of foreign policy, too. Day after day, they are making it plain that the Republican Party is dominated by isolationists--the ones described by General Biddle--who don't really believe in international cooperation at all.

Today, most of the American people know that the survival of our country depends on our foreign policy. They know that a firm, consistent foreign policy can arise only from a nonpartisan foundation. They know that the leaders of both parties should work together in foreign policy for the good of the country, and that partisan politics should stop at the waters' edge.

The wiser heads of the Republican Party understand these things, too. Some of them have worked for a common agreement between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy, for the good of the country. But just as these wiser heads appear to have succeeded in getting the Republican Party to stand for the good of the country in foreign affairs, a revolt breaks out; and the old, unreconstructed, isolationist wing of the Republican Party sets out in full cry again-and scares the people half to death.

This happened again, just a few weeks ago. Senator Wiley, the ranking Republican Member of the foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, made a speech to the newspaper editors on April 19. I had a press conference for those editors, and had more fun than I have had in a long time. He said there was a great deal in our international relations of which every American could be proud. He said that the Republican Party should not engage in unjustified criticism of our foreign policy, but should play a constructive role. And he asked us all to remember that, and I quote Senator Wiley verbatim, "We are first and last of that breed called Americans."

It was a good speech, and it was an honest one.

Well, what happened? first of all, the Bettie McCormick sabotage press jumped on Senator Wiley. They said he had endangered his country, betrayed the voters of his State, and imperiled his party. Then his Republican colleagues in the Senate went after him. Senator Cain from Washington, Senator Welker and Senator Mundt, and Senator Hickenlooper from Iowa, Senator Schoeppel of Kansas, and Senator Bridges of New Hampshire, and that great one-man grand jury Senator Ferguson of Michigan, all these gentlemen went after Wiley in a pack. They sneered at him, they jeered at him, they distorted his words, they cross-questioned him. They gave him to understand that this was an election year, and that it was the duty of every Republican to attack the foreign policy of his country. They made it clear that first and last, when it came to foreign policy, they were of that breed called Republicans, and Senator Wiley ought to be likewise. In other words, they are Republicans before they are Americans.

And there wasn't a single Republican who got up on his feet and said Senator Wiley was right.

Nobody ought to be in doubt, now. That was the Republican answer to the latest plea, from one of their own members, for a bipartisan foreign policy. That was their answer to a fellow Republican who dared to stand up and say that our country is doing a good thing when it cooperates with other countries, in Europe and in the far East, to hold back aggression.

Isolationism is not dead. Far from it. Even if the Republicans get a presidential candidate with a good record in foreign affairs, he will not be able to drown out the raucous isolationist outcries of the rest of the party. And that prospect is beginning to scare the voters--and it ought to scare them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take the problem of offshore oil, for example. The minerals that lie under the sea off the coasts of this country belong to the Federal Government--that is, to all the people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those rights may be worth as much as somewhere between $40 billion and $100 billion.

If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States, where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves.

Talk about corruption. Talk about stealing from the people. That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a colossal scale. It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.

I got a letter from a fellow in Texas today, who is a friend of mine, and he was weeping over what the schoolchildren of Texas were going to lose if Texas didn't get its oil lands 9 miles out from the shore. And I composed a letter to him, and then didn't send it. I said what about the schoolchildren in Missouri and Colorado, and North Dakota and Minnesota, and Tennessee and Kentucky and Illinois, do they have any interest in this at all? Evidently not, it should all go to Texas. Well, it isn't going there, if I can help it.

I can see how the Members of Congress from Texas and California and Louisiana might like to have all the offshore oil for their States. But I certainly can't understand how Members of Congress from the other 45 States can vote to give away the interest the people of their own States have in this tremendous asset. It's just over my head and beyond me how any interior Senator or Congressman could vote to give that asset away. I am still puzzled about it. As far as I am concerned, I intend to stand up and fight to protect the people's interests in this matter.

There's another matter I don't intend to back down on. That is our party's pledge to develop the vast natural power resources of this country for the benefit of all the people, and make sure that the power produced by public funds is transmitted to the consumer without a private rake-off. How could we back down on a pledge like that? When we look around us at the great good that has been done by the TVA and the Grand Coulee and the Southwest Power Administration--when we see what projects like these have done to improve the lives and increase the prosperity of our people-how could we possibly justify weakening our policy? We just can't do it.

I don't care how much money the power lobby puts into this campaign against us. I don't care what lies and smears they put out. There is a principle here which goes to the welfare of the country. And we are going to stick to it. We are going to win on it.

There is another thing we must stand firm on. That is our pledge on the issue of civil rights. No citizen of this great country ought to be discriminated against because of his race, religion, or national origin. That is the essence of the American ideal and the American Constitution. I made that statement verbatim in the speech on March 29th, in which I said I would not run for President, and I hope that speech, and this, will be the fundamental basis of the platform of the Democratic Party in Chicago.

We have made good progress on civil rights since 1948, in the Federal Government, in the Armed forces, and in the States. But we still need the legislation which I recommended to the Congress over 4 years ago. We must go ahead to secure for all our citizens--east, west, north, and south--the right of equal opportunity in our economic and political life, and the right to equal protection under the law. That is real, true, 100 percent Americanism.

This is very important to us abroad as well as at home. The vision of equal rights is the greatest inspiration of human beings throughout the world. There is one member of this ADA who can tell us from her own experience how important it is for the world to know that we share this vision. She has been our spokesman on this subject in the councils of the United Nations and she has done a wonderful job--and that is Mrs. Roosevelt.

Another part of our fight that is extremely important--that is, to protect the civil liberties of Americans. Your national chairman, Francis Biddle, has pointed out the terrible dangers that lie in wait for us if we surrender to the clamor of McCarthyism, and adopt the practice of guilt by accusation. We cannot, we will not, give up nor weaken on this issue either.

I got a great kick the other day out of a headline, or article, on the left-hand side of the paper, in which it said that a committee in the Congress was going to investigate the Justice Department for browbeating witnesses. Now, I am not casting any reflections on any good Senator or Representative, but they had better investigate themselves on that.

These are some of the principles for which the Democratic Party stands, and for which the ADA stands. We stand for better education, better health, greater opportunities for all. We stand for fair play and decency, for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the cherished principle that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.

Taken together, these principles are the articles of the liberal faith. I am sure that the liberal faith is the political faith of the great majority of Americans. It sometimes happens that circumstances of time and place combine to deny its expression. But the faith is there, and the reactionaries can never hope to have any but temporary advantage in this country.

That is why the fair Deal program will not be weakened by compromise. That is why the Democratic Party will nominate a liberal for President.

That is why, this time, as in 1948, the ADA will throw its energies into the campaign battle--and will carry on the good fight against reaction, fear, and selfishness.

And that is why, this time, as in 1948, we'll win. (end of speech).




Alas, the brilliant, but uncharismatic, Adlai Stevenson lost in 1952 to World War II hero Eisenhower, but anyone would have lost to a World War II victorious five-star general in 1952.

[wyldwolf]

159. Frankly I'm shocked you posted the whole speech, seeing as he called "progressives" 'crackpots.'

Let's set it up:

Harry Truman is giving a speech to the Americans for Democratic Action, an organization led by Eleanor Roosevelt. Truman and (Eleanor) Roosevelt didn't always get along and sometime they'd butted heads on matters of policy and candidates. Eleanor was an early supporter of Henry Wallace, who ran against Truman in '48.

Truman took some small swipes at the ADA in this speech. First off was this:

there was a time when it might not have been so pleasant for me to meet with the ADA. I understand that 4 years ago-along about this time--some of the leaders of ADA were engaged in rather wild fancies about the Presidential nomination... You know, the peculiar part about it was that you were a young political organization and you had not studied the history of conventions. A President of the United States, when he desires and when he wants to be nominated, there isn't anybody in the world can keep him from being nominated.

Here, Truman was referencing the third party run of 'progressive' Henry Wallace and he was chiding them for supporting him. He was actually a little condescending, wasn't he? He essentially says, "It's understandable that you were stupid in '48. Your were inexperienced wannabes. We can all laugh about your 'wild fancies' about politics now."

He then sets the audience up for his famous "phony Democrat" quote:

In spite of the various notions about the nomination in 1948... the outcome of the election that year astonished a great many people. We astonished the pollsters and the sabotage press, and the opposition candidates--Republican, crackpot, and Dixiecrat.

Here, Truman calls out the 'progressive' movement by referring to Henry Wallace as a 'crackpot.' He also mentions the Dixiecrat (Strom Thurmond.) Two men who he rightly considered phony Democrats - a 'progressive' and a racist.

Now here comes the money quote:

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

You have to ask yourself who Truman was specifically referring to. Was it 'Democrats' who didn't believe in the New Deal? That's certainly what he said and it was directed at Strom Thurmond. But it might have just as well been directed at FDR himself who said this in his annual message to Congress in 1935:

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity... The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.

Whew! Strong anti-welfare words from FDR himself.

Were Truman's words directed at 'Democrats' who weren't sufficiently 'progressive' overall as is claimed by people on DU and other places? There is NO indication of that whatsoever. Truman himself was accused by 'progressives' of the day for being too conservative (as was FDR, as a matter of fact.)

In '48, Truman made his feelings quite clear on the far left ("crackpots&quot and far right of the party. After his victory, he said: "The greatest achievement was winning without the radicals in the party. I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the left-wing or the southern bloc."

If we were to take Truman's quote and apply it to any time period beyond 1952, it would make just as much sense, perhaps more sense, to apply it to 'progressives.'

But let's say the quote IS about DLC/blue dogs/centrist, whatever. If it is, Truman was wrong. Those types of Dems have defeated "progressives" in countless primaries and Republicans in countless general elections. People did not, in fact, choose the Republican over them "every time."

History laughs everytime someone on DU pulls out the old Truman quote. He despised "progressives."

[Number23]

184. That is one hell of an analysis

Thanks for that.

[merrily]

197. Boy, did you miss President Truman' point by many miles.

The ADA is a liberal organization and Truman praised traditional Democrats and liberals throughout that speech.

You also don't know my posting style very well. I don't opt out of anything simply because it doesn't fit my political preference. Guess you do, though, if you assume I would.

Nor do you get that I am not a progressive, nor have I ever self-described as such.
I have not checked to see what DU's software glitch did to my journal, but it used to contain a post I wrote explaining why I never referred to myself as a progressive and never will.

For one thing, I I have no idea what "progressive" means, given it was originally the party of the left wing of the Republican Party and Will Marshall left the DLC to found the Progressive Policy Institute. I am nothing like the left wing of the Republican Party.

I stay as far away as I can from self-describing as anything with the stench of the DLC, Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute, No Labels philosophies on it.


I am a traditional Democrat.

[wyldwolf]

198. 'Progressive" attempts at rewriting history to fit their narrative is sad. And funny.

"I understand that 4 years ago-along about this time--some of the leaders of ADA were engaged in rather wild fancies about the Presidential nomination... You know, the peculiar part about it was that you were a young political organization and you had not studied the history of conventions."

THAT was praising 'traditional Democrats?"

Look, this isn't exactly MY interpretation of the speech. Truman biographers have pointed what I wrote out. 'Progressive" attempts at rewriting history to fit their narrative is sad. And funny.

I can tell where you got your edumacation from. DU University.

[merrily]

199. Whether it's Trumans' speech or my post to you, you clearly need work on reading for comprehension.

I will leave you alone now so you can work on that and I can enjoy posting to other posters.

[wyldwolf]

202. I guess we're lucky

Right wing history revisionists usually make it out of the trenches. If 'progressives' did, we'd have our own versions of "Paul Revere rang those bells to warn the British they weren't gonna take our guns!"

[treestar]

162. I knew you expected it to work from the top down

It doesn't.

[daredtowork]

168. And Stop Triangulating

The GOP loves it when Democrats try to triangulate toward the mythical "middle", because all they have to do is grab onto a corner of that triangle and keep pulling it to the right, "proving" their case with repeated calls to kneejerk emotions.

The Democratic agenda has to be defined in opposition to the GOP, and it has to be defined - and proven - at the local level. That means once a Democrat gets in office, they should be working for their constituents to demonstrate why Democrats should be in office. If Democrats are "progressive" then people have to see what "progress" means at a local level.

In politics, "power" is the ability to win elections. Power is the ability to marshal the vote. Democrats might have something to learn from the women's suffrage movement here. Just how did women who had no power to affect the outcome of elections get enough men to vote to give women the vote? Handing out pamphlet and "educating" the people didn't work for decades. Going to their congressional "representatives" and pleading reason didn't exactly work either. No - they started disrupting at the bottom and showing they could affect the vote and change the course of local elections: they built their own "political machine".

[Rex]

172. It's funny watching "DUers" support neoliberalism

and even funnier, it is exactly the same people that carry water for the 1% and piss on OWS any chance they get.

So fucking obvious...oh and they are also the ones that complain about this site ALL the time.

But yeah...no doubt the are really here on good faith,

[YoungDemCA]

173. You mean like the thinly veiled Randroids here?

I agree, it's fucking hilarious.

[Rex]

175. Yes the Paulbots are sad too.

Anyone that supports libertarians is a sad creature imo.

[noiretextatique]

222. the third way has its supporters

they believe triangulating is the only way to win elections.

[MannyGoldstein]

178. Jeez, DU has come a long way.

Good stuff, thanks!

[hrmjustin]

193. My opinion is that Democrats should stand up for democratic values.

Progressives and centrists alike should stand by traditional values of our party.

I think it was a mistake to run away from the president and it made the loses worse.

90 million were expected to vote but at the end of the day voter turnout might not even break 80 million.

I accept at times not every Democratic politician will agree on everything and imo that does not make them infiltrators.

[cascadiance]

208. The president could help us there by not pushing for TPP to get passed or shut down Keystone...

Passing the TPP through fast track methods is anything BUT traditional democratic values.

This was why Obama had a lot of problems getting the so-called "left" (actually the mainstream) of the Democratic Party behind him and encouraging his being tied to candidates in the election to help them win.

He was attacked by Republicans for many unreasonable and stupid reasons that was echoed by the corporate media to put him in the corner. But he also failed to stick up for real progressives in his party on so many issues like these, to get their support as well, that might have spoken strongly against the Republicans in so many states.

In 2016, we need someone that is no longer doing the bidding of corporate lobbyists, and is a fierce independent and asking the 1%ers to take him on publicly, the way that FDR did in his time. I fear that we won't yet put that kind of person in office when we and the climate change timebomb in our world need that kind of leadership now.

[Rex]

194. I know I should ignore them, but I never ignored trolls either.

It's fun fucking with libertarians.

[woo me with science]

195. kick

[Zorra]

196. kick

[SidDithers]

200. Kick...nt

Sid

[mstinamotorcity2]

203. they only wanted to get a foot in.

Said back in 2007 if we act like Repugs how will they know the difference??

[Frustratedlady]

204. I think it would benefit us all if we just got rid of think tanks.

We've had nothing but trouble since think tanks have become so plentiful/strong, as well as K-Street and the lobbyists.

Too much power. It doesn't matter who we elect, as they are controlled by the above puppeteers. They may mean well when they first come to DC, but they are soon under the corporate/powerists' spell, not to mention the millions in their private coffers.

Shoot, I'm even beginning to wonder if our votes are counted or if they are set at a pre-determined outcome.

[Autumn]

209. Here's another kick

[woo me with science]

210. kick

[ileus]

211. probably believe in chemtrails also...

[woo me with science]

212. kick

[Number23]

213. I love how this keeps getting kicked as a "counter" to all of the really wonderful, positive news

about the President that's getting posted lately. Too much positivity and unity hurts, so lets kick this OP from a week ago and its 120 recs which, considering that damn near everything negative here used to get as a minimum 200 recs, is very telling in its lack of support.

So I'll kick too! Kick so that this OP and those who love this stale brand of divisive idiocy can be seen far and wide! Kick, dammit!

[wyldwolf]

232. in threads like this, a big portion of the replies are Limbaugh fan-like 'dittos.'

[Number23]

234. Absolutely. But it's always fun to watch the "left" ditto heads in action. They're the ones LOVING

this OP which doesn't pretend to be anything but needlessly divisive.

And despite that, it's still WELL short of the 200 recs this type usually gets around here. Oh well, here's hoping to the next one is a bit more successful.

[Rex]

214. 122 recs nooooooooooooooooo!

LOL @ the supposed adults that act like they are still in junior high.

[polichick]

223. Amen.

[VanillaRhapsody]

228. I'm ignoring you instead.

[woo me with science]

231. Hear, hear. This deserves to stay on top

for a long, long time.

[Jamastiene]

233. I wish I could Rec this again.

Kicking instead.

[Zorra]

235. kick

[woo me with science]

236. Yep. Needs to stay on top.

[Zorra]

237. ^

[woo me with science]

238. kick

[ucrdem]

239. Third Way candidates included Alison Grimes, Mark Udall, and Kay Hagan.

They ran from Obama and they lost. Perhaps there's something to this OP after all.

DU link: Here are the Third Way elected officials, identified by Third Way

[Zorra]

240. ^

[SidDithers]

241. ...

Sid

[woo me with science]

242. kick

[woo me with science]

243. Good reminder for today.

[Zorra]

245. ^

[sibelian]

246. kick!

Late to the party. la la la

[NorthCarolina]

247. Hillary is 3rd way, and it appears she is already

considered the Democratic Contender for POTUS in 2016. How can that be handled? Since it's likely that no Democrats are likely to vote for the GOP as an alternative to Hillary, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS?

For me, if Sanders runs.....he will have my vote, but if not...what are the options? Write his name in on the ballot anyway?

[cui bono]

248. k n r

[beltanefauve]

249. Kicked!

[Autumn]

250. I'm gonna have to kick this

[hrmjustin]

251. Why?

[Autumn]

252. Why not? it was kicked yesterday and third way seems to be a topic of discussion today.

[hrmjustin]

253. oh i though it was just kicked. saw it in the latest page.

Seems like a really old thread.

[Autumn]

254. I found it interesting that a discussion on the

third way came up today. This is an old thread from 2014 when people were insisting that the third way never existed and there were dozens of posts with links to the third way think tanks and their pages. I didn't thin k these old posts could be brought back up

[hrmjustin]

255. The third way boogeyman is going to get you!

No it is fine. sorry to disturb.

[Autumn]

256. The third way boogeyman is going to get us all

[hrmjustin]

257. And who is that?

[Autumn]

258. There's information in the other thread but Skip layed it out in his post

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

I'm going out to the garden to get it ready. You have a nice day.

[hrmjustin]

259. You too.

[merrily]

262. Apparently, this one can be brought back up.

Hard to believe that, as late as 2014, people on a political message board were in denial about the existence of the Third Way.

[Autumn]

263. That's really something isn't it

[bvar22]

260. DURec.

The 3rd Way can just Go Away back to the Republican Party where they belong.

[SoapBox]

264. Wow...a year ago and it was such wise words!

No...Third...Way!