Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why doesn't the Democratic Party have a platform anymore? [View all]JimDandy
(7,318 posts)39. Yes, and Republicans publicly signing on
to social issues that are usually identified with Democrats (gays, fair immigration policies), might actually help to remove the cover from these 3rd Way and DLC "dems" and expose them for what they are: anti-American jobs, anti-economic fairness; anti-regulationists, anti-labor, anti-unions, anti-poor--in short anti-Democrat.
Time to take the Dem party back!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
76 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think you answered the question in your last paragraph. The DLC/Third Way have taken over the
sabrina 1
May 2013
#1
Local politics are important. Local politics are how the far right took over the GOP.
HiPointDem
May 2013
#48
But... we don't have the three decades it took them to get to where they are now.
Occulus
May 2013
#71
Had one in 2012 over putting "God" back in the platform after conservatives called us out.
dawg
May 2013
#17
Is that supposed to impress becaue her brother is on TV? If Blue Dogs were so electable
Bluenorthwest
May 2013
#74
Support for the Democratic Platform is an act of disloyalty to the Democratic Party.
dawg
May 2013
#18
They do. They just keep it secret from the rank & file because it is to support corporations first
on point
May 2013
#28
because its leadership has moved so far to the right they are really closet republicans? nt
msongs
May 2013
#35
Clinton felt the goal was to give Republicans a run for their money,...using the same money.
Spitfire of ATJ
May 2013
#44
Yes! I'm so tired of the "well would you rather have Romney (or whoever)" response.
cui bono
May 2013
#64
My answer to that is always "If we had Romney, the Devil we deal with would at least be
Occulus
May 2013
#72
It began with Clinton. The anti-government propaganda worked. What it did was essentially
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2013
#66