Is there still room in the Democratic Party for those who advocate for these Liberal Issues?

[bvar22]

*Medicare for anyone who wants it.

*Immediate withdrawal of ALL military forces and "contractors" from the Middle East.

*Immediate reduction of Military Spending by at least 50%

*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything "Too Big to Fail".

*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.

*An end to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom)

*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.

*Women's Right to Choose

*EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act)

*An end to the two-tiered Judicial System

*Prosecution of rich American War Criminals and War Profiteers. (Oh yes they did!)

*An END to "Corporate Personhood"

*Strictly Enforced Publicly Financed Elections (severe penalties for criminals)

*Transparent and Verifiable elections (Why isn't this a front burner issue with the Democratic Party?)

*Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities.

*NO Public Money for private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies, Private/Charter Schools, or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

*Immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL. (No Exceptions)

*Free Quality Universal Education to everyone who wants it.

*Strong Social Safety Net and Consumer Protections.

*An end to The Patriot Act and a return to The Constitution.(especially Habeas and privacy protections)

*A refutation of the "Unitary Executive", and legislation to ensure it NEVER happens again.

*An END to Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE The Democratic Party !
(NO! They DON"T deserve a seat at the table!)

Or does advocating for these Liberal Issues now constitute an attack on the Democratic Party?

[DJ13]

1. Around here? Many diehard supporters would think its an attack

Liberalism and traditional party policies takes a distant second place to promoting Obama.... no matter how many of his policies actually originated in conservative Republican think tank proposals from years past.

They twist themselves into pretzels praising many of the proposals they once railed against when it came from Republicans instead of taking a step back and recognizing they are being misled.

[Go2Peace]

55. They are a minority but they are on the site day and nite spamming Talking points

It makes it look like the site has less progressives than it is. But make no mistake. There are more progressive liberals here. Just watch what makes it to the top.

[laughingliberal]

65. I have noticed that point about what makes it to the top

I see the attempts to flood the board by a vocal minority and see it as a tactic to make their numbers seem bigger and make the targets of their attacks feel isolated. But, I note that those posts which support tried and true liberal values like the ones in the OP receive far more Rec's and are, often, at the top of the Greatest. That tells me we still have a lot of DUers who believe in the principles laid out in the OP and I am encouraged by this that there is still hope for the party.

[kenfrequed]

114. I have wondered about this

PR firms are hitting message boards especially those political or activist boards where they can sway or dissuade people that tend to write letters and communicate with their elected representatives.

I have wondered if organizations like the DLC or certain conservative groups don't likewise hire people to occasionally monitor or post on these boards.

[pattmarty]

130. Ringers or plants. As sure as there are teabaggers, you can be..........

........sure there are "ringers" here at DU. Most of us know their screen names and have seen their reactionary posts.

[defendandprotect]

146. Of course they do ... !!

[Raksha]

157. I assume they've been doing that for years.

Re I have wondered if organizations like the DLC or certain conservative groups don't likewise hire people to occasionally monitor or post on these boards.

It doesn't take long to recognize a pattern, and there are some here I suspect are paid DLC trolls. Often they have 1000+ replies and donor stars, but you can still tell by the types of topics they post on and the kinds of arguments they use. Very often they are "concern trolls," but they have other tactics as well.

I'm not calling out anyone specific here, but then I don't need to. I'm not the only one who recognizes the pattern by a long way!

[rudy23]

162. No you are most certainly not ;) n/t

[bvar22]

213. You can stop wondering

"Rahm Emanuel's Think Tankers Enforce 'Message Discipline' Among 'Liberals'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/rahm-emanu...

[Ken Burch]

233. "enforcing 'Message Discipline'"....Ooooh. that sounds like good kinky fun!

Gives the term "Majority Whip" a whole new meaning as well.

[MissDeeds]

254. It's a fair question

When "Democrats" take such a dramatic turn and champion talking points and issues that mainstream Dems have opposed for years, it makes you wonder. There is a real possibility that some who post here and at other left leaning sites are paid to promote certain agendas. Jeez...I never thought I'd have to say that, but now days, anything is possible.

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

105. + 1,000 nt

[joeybee12]

123. They should have an Obama hotline, like the Corey hotline on The Simpsons

where these people can call and listen to him read the ingredients on their morning cereal box.

[Lautremont]

136. "Here are some words that rhyme with Obama: drama, llama, Alabama..."

[Toasterlad]

210. "Hi, This Is Obama. Hope You and I Can Get Married Some Day."

[kath]

149. +1000 more. "Teen Beat Obama"

Yep.

[FredStembottom]

182. The laff I needed today!

I salute you, Captain!

[pundaint]

237. Perfectly characterized!

[MissDeeds]

99. I've noticed that too

Spamming, talking points, attempts to quash criticism, accusing posters of aiding Palin in 2012...they're all tactics of this very vocal minority. During the * years, the right used the same tactics.

[Moochy]

138. sort of a "captive" audience

well there are escapees leaving every day.

[Name removed]

275. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[progressoid]

63. Sad but true.

[defendandprotect]

145. Agree --

Evidently, it's difficult for them to remember we're talking about politicians --

and corporate power --

All is Holy with them, except any true liberal/progressive ideals!!

[donco6]

176. +1000 n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

190. Since Obama's election

DU and the Democratic party at large has resembled something akin to Bizzaro World. Advocating for Liberal principles and taking issue with the centrist policies of the Obama administration makes you a closet Republican, "leftbagger", "firebagger", Obama hater etc.

I barely recognize large swatches of DU anymore.

[eleny]

2. K&R

[saracat]

3. Interesting, some of the alleged "progressives " seem to be unreccing this.

Don't these issues still matter? What is wrong with people?

[bvar22]

4. Interesting.

There is a furious battle going on behind the scenes.

[salguine]

49. You can tell who unrecs things?

[Nikki Stone1]

59. Tea leaves

Amazing way to do it.

[Raineyb]

126. Simple as noticing the rec count. It's not rocket science. n/t

[rhett o rick]

173. Wow, mr. science, you can tell WHO does the unrec'ing from the count?

Amazing. She said that progressives were unrec'ing. The DLC strikes again.

[laughingliberal]

207. Okay, I think the point might be that this site is, ostensibly, for people who are generally

supportive of progressive policies. I'm guessing it's a bit of irony on the part of the poster to note unrecs on an alleged progressive site for an OP laying out progressive values.

[rhett o rick]

259. The poster in #3 is clearly anti-progressive and just stops by to drop little bombs

and moves on. The poster above was making a failure of an attempt to be sarcastic.

[Raineyb]

284. No but knowing WHO unreced isn't necessary when dealing with a strictly numbers

problem. And that's MS. Science thank you very much.

What people call themselves isn't really all that important. At least not to how I look at this unrec thing vis a vis this OP. There are a lot of people who claim to have progressive leanings who betray their claims every time they post. Based on the contents of the OP it's logical to surmise that that contingent would be the ones to unrec in the first place. So the post where the word "progressive" was put in quotes is right and the person asking about who is talking out of his or her ass. A progressive doesn't deliberately unrec a post listing progressive ideals that the party used to claim to stand for.

[rhett o rick]

305. Ms Science, i do appologize for the gender mistake. Sounds kinda like rocket science to me. nm

[Enthusiast]

68. Alleged is the word. nt

[femrap]

106. Willful ignorance....

or maybe certain people think of politics as some type of athletic game where they just want to be on the 'winning' side.

[pundaint]

239. That seems to be what all of American society has become. I blame ESPN.

And, of course, NLP and Corporate Greed.

[Stinky The Clown]

159. What is wrong with people is that they're Blinded by the Light.

[ooglymoogly]

177. Unfortunately, it is a blinding light we ourselves

have created that O basques in and soldiers for the pugs from. That light is fast dwindling for lack of fuel (worshipers) and deluded new Obamarama right or wrong, progressives to burn.

[rhett o rick]

282. What is wrong is that people arent given choices. You want a reich-wing whacko or a conserva-Dem? nm

[newspeak]

297. actually do you want a republican or a republican

Because both push the same agenda. The methods they use to push that agenda is another matter.

[rhett o rick]

172. So you just drop by to drop us a little turd-bomb? nm

[rhett o rick]

175. The question is do YOU support these issues? Does the DLC support these issues? nm

[Oregone]

5. Sure. In the corner with a dunce cap on.

[CommonSensePLZ]

14. Hey, what are you doing all the way over there on the right? nt

[rhett o rick]

260. DLC = blue dog = republican. nm

[mike_c]

6. not in today's democratic party-- NIXON was to the left of most dem...

...policy positions today. I mean, NIXON, for pity's sake.

[G_j]

8. true dat..

how sad..

[SPedigrees]

9. All republicans used to be normal. It was the Reagan era when they all drank the kool aid.

Nixon was a psychopath and a criminal, but as far as political views went, republicans weren't RW batshit crazy.

[mike_c]

10. yeah, and I'd be forced to vote for him if he ran against about half...

...the senate democrats! He was more progressive than they are today!

[PVnRT]

81. Not all - Robert Taft comes to mind, along with McCarthy

[Jackpine Radical]

115. But remember that Bobby Kennedy ran with Tail Gunner Joe

in his early days.

[pattmarty]

133. Bobby Kennedy was not the saint he's made out to be. He was..............

..........anti labor, but was a huge supporter of civil rights, I'll give him that.

[defendandprotect]

147. Bobby Kennedy was a huge supporter of Chavez . . . and immigrant labor . . .

and civil rights -- !!

[dflprincess]

196. Bobby Kennedy moved more to the left as time went on

and especially so after JFK was murdered.

One could say his positions "evolved" and, unlike some of today's politicians who claim their ideas have evolved, RFK actually did change for the better.

[defendandprotect]

148. The Kennedys quit Joe McCarthy long before anyone else did . . .

if I recall this correctly ---

Certainly as a Senator, Jack Kennedy, was moving away from UHAC and McCarthy --

[laughingliberal]

200. Speaking of McCarthy...

I'm seeing about that level of red baiting here on DU some days. And I thought it was shocking when Ann Coulter said McCarthy was right. Is it some indication of the rightward direction of the party when we find Democrats posting on Democratic sites who are holding opinions Ann Coulter was spouting 5 years ago?

[femrap]

109. It's so damn sad....

Nixon looks like a little intelligent Teddy Bear today compared to the likes of Raygun and the 2 shrubs.

And I still say Clinton was the best Republican Prez ever....well, after Teddy.

[Hawkowl]

214. Clinton better than Eisenhower?

I think Clinton was probably a middle of the pack Republican president.

[femrap]

269. Yea....

at least Ike warned of the Industrial-Military-(Congressional) Complex.

Poor Haiti.

[newspeak]

298. I thought Eisenhower introduced corporate incentives

for hiring Americans and for development? Clinton signed Poppy's NAFTA GATT-I don't consider that trade treaty a plus for american labor. I remember when Clinton got on TV and told us we were going to be the service industry in the world (and I thought, yeah we'll all be working at McDonalds). Also, Nixon created the EPA.

[amborin]

186. when Nixon was to the left of most of today's democratic party, you know the country is in trouble

[SPedigrees]

7. Our Vermont Senators and Congressman seem to find room for themselves

within the Democratic party. They advocate these liberal issues, but they do not bite off their noses to spite their faces (or the faces of their constituents.) Instead they work tirelessly towards improving the lives of all Americans as well as those of we Vermonters who sent them to Washington. Not all states are liberal enough to elect such progressives as Leahy, Sanders and Welch (and it is unlikely that any other state could elect an Independent, self professed "socialist democrat" like Bernie) but the worst democrat is worth 20 of the best republicans (and these days there seems to be no "best repub.")

[defendandprotect]

150. Where does any other state find another Bernie Sanders -- !!! Wow!!

[truedelphi]

11. I am for these things. And when you realize that 76 % of all

Americans did want Universal H C "R", and not the current Corporate Giveaways, I think it is fair to say that many today support those policies.

However precisely because many today support the policies you list, the few but powerful people behind the curtain will keep this Tea Bagger movement alive and well.

There is no place in the United States for sensible, and middle of the road policy. The thinking person's agenda has to be abandoned - all the politicians have to support the Big Corporations, be they Big Oil, Big Insurers, Big Banks, Big Military Contractors, et al. And to do this, the politicians need our support as well.

So to get thinking people to abandon their agenda - the forces of cohesion must come into heavy play.

In 2001, this force became the event known as "Nine Eleven." We all became so terrified (for the most part) that we didn't get out in the streets to rebel as our Congress people voted in the Patriot Act.

Now the silliness and the violence coming from the Tea Baggers will once again throw us into panic mode. We will suddenly receive the "insight" that it is either the Obama way or the way of the Tea Baggers.

And I am convinced that this has been planned from the get go. I am just not sure of the outcome. If we were to have a further deepening of the recession, with few police around, and no one is eating any more -- and these Tea Bagger crazies start driving around killing us, then what?

But hey -- at least we were prevented from turning our nation's policies away from the Too Big Too Fail Crowd.

[Enthusiast]

71. truedelphi, this thing is a gigantic

"operation" and probably funded by the American tax payer. 9/11 was too convenient for their purposes to have been coincidental.

[defendandprotect]

151. Agree -- and what followed was hugely anti-civil rights, and overwhelmingly MIC pyramid scheme...

9/11 was an all encompassing war on citizens, IMO --

including turning once again to violence, torture and war as a solution to problems --

a reinstating of the macho culture.

[Enthusiast]

277. I think we can agree

at the very least the Bush Administration was adequately forewarned about 9/11 yet did not interfere because they stood to gain so much. Jr. could become that "war president", executive power boost etc.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. Oh hell yes!

Your hard work, money, vote, and liberal advocacy are more than welcome in the Democratic Party!

Just don't ever expect them to actually do anything liberal.

[Sherman A1]

66. +1, Agreed & Well Said!

Until we have public finance of elections it's going to be just a dream.

[CommonSensePLZ]

13. I thought we did nt

[BlooInBloo]

15. Not if supporting those things means aligning with teabaggers...

Otherwise, of course.

[CommonSensePLZ]

17. ...You're kidding right?

If so

[Enthusiast]

72. BlooInBloo says funny things. nt

[Forkboy]

88. Rarely on purpose.

[leftstreet]

31. The Teabaggers advocate Medicare For All....military withdrawal, etc?

HOLY CRAP!

No wonder they're getting so much press coverage

[liberation]

219. So that is what logical dissonance sounds like...

... unless, of course, I missed the sarcasm somewhere....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Yes. But, the seats under the bus are rapidly being assigned by the administration.

[Ignis]

18. That's crazy talk! Our party, right or wrong!

[tnlefty]

19. Yes,

when it's time to donate, phone bank, hold signs and wave, knock on doors, work elections....

[democrank]

20. "Liberal" issues dying a slow death in this new Democratic Party.

Positions and principles that used to define a majority of Democrats are now called "too liberal" or "far left" since the DLC helped push the center further and further toward the right.

We used to be proud that we stood up for unions, that we believed a woman had the right to choose what happened with her own body. We didn`t make excuses for torture or unending wars and we were the first to speak out against social and economic injustices.

As a party, that`s pretty much over. What we have now is a mere handful of principled progressive leaders. The rest seem more comfortable with corporatists than unemployed steel workers or homeless seven year olds.

I`ve been a Democrat for more than four decades and it kills me to say these things.

[kenfrequed]

119. What I think is interesting

Is that the ideas and energy always comes from the progressive 'democratic wing' of the democratic party and then after the election the DLC jumps out of the cake and starts doing victory laps as though people actually wanted corporate friendly republican lite government.

[xynthee]

21. Why would any decent or reasonable person be against anything on your list??

It's so bizarre that ANYthing on your list would be considered even mildly controversial, let alone cuckoo-crazy, but alas, that's the sad state of affairs today, isn't it?

I see this as a list of very practical, mutually-beneficial-to-almost-EVERYone, no-brainers.

BTW, how are you liking where you live? I grew up just a few miles south of there. I remember when you moved and I was wondering how you'd like it. I imagine it took a lot of getting used to. It's the ideal place for living off the grid and growing your own food, but I don't know if I could ever go back. My family is still there, though, and they'd never even consider leaving. There are a lot of good people there, but most everyone is conservative and ultra-religious. Maybe you can influence some of the locals, though; they're not regularly exposed to "radical" ideas like the stuff on your list and the relative novelty of your philosophies will undoubtedly appeal to some.

Best of luck to you!! Thank you for watering down the bright-redness of the area!!

[bvar22]

54. We actually love it here.

This is our 4th growing season, and things are getting easier.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

More people are moving into this area for the same reasons we did.
We were delighted to find that 1 out of 3 (33%) people who live back up in these hills (some say mountains) actually VOTED for the Black DEMOCRAT Guy! That is way more than we expected, and the young don't seem as bitterly hard wired as their parents.

We are respectful, tolerant, and neighborly with those in our area. The locals respond much better to that approach. We don't hide our political leanings, but don't flaunt them either.
When discussions turn to politics, we avoid the wedge issues and frame our politics in terms of the pocketbook.
"I'm a Democrat because I have always had to Work for a Living."
That gets a lot of mileage here as more people are feeling the economic pressure.
We have not had any real problems here, and only one time in 3-1/2 years has anyone invited us to attend their church, which we very respectfully declined.

We joined the local Rural Fire Department, and have earned the respect of the other firefighters by showing up and doing our part in the line. My wife is also the First Responder for our area.
People tend to give you a little respect and acceptance when they realize YOU are the ones who show up when they are in trouble.

We feel that our vote carries more weight here than it did in a totally Blue area.
I think we were successful at giving some of the locals permission to vote for Obama.

This is truly an area of pristine natural beauty as yet undiscovered & overlooked by most of America.
There are certainly depressing levels of poverty and ignorance, fundamentalism, entrenched political feudalism, and poor Social Services, but that is slowly changing.

We have made a HOME here, and are grateful.

[SPedigrees]

57. That's a lovely photo, and this is a great line:

"I'm a Democrat because I have always had to Work for a Living."

That sums up what the democratic party stands for. Why dem candidates don't plug themselves as being "for working families" is something I don't understand. It is a soundbite that would resonate with voters, and can be easily backed up by facts, such as social security, medicare, unemployment benefits: all brought to you by democrats.

[martymar64]

268. The way my grandma said it rang true for me

"A working man has no business being a Republican"

[xynthee]

61. That's great!

My mom said everyone went off the deep end when it became clear Obama would probably win, even the few lifelong democrats.

There has been lots of talk about the end times, tea parties and stockpiling weapons. She's not one to debate them or try to talk sense into them, though. She just suffers them in silence, then calls or emails me about it all. If she were the type that enjoyed conflict / confrontation, she'd be having a blast!!

[theFrankFactor]

97. Beautiful!

[hfojvt]

129. and there it is - succintly put

"no decent or reasonable people disagree with me"

Although you seem to contradict yourself too "There are a lot of good people there, but most everyone is conservative and ultra-religious." Or are those people both good and UNreasonable.

[Forkboy]

303. Well, they might agree with Teabaggers, as Bloo says.

I thought I'd offer that up, just in case moronic, mind bendingly idiotic thinking is your style, like it is with him.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amborin]

23. K&R the party is dissing progressives and liberals and pushing them away

[Therellas]

24. bingo

no pot or gays either.

just business as usual.
yay

[blueworld]

96. +100

and being vocal about ignoring both "the left" and "the right", as if we all deserve to be treated the same way. Although I'm guessing the votes & contributions would reflect differently.

[dflprincess]

198. But if things go badly this November or in 2012

the right wingers running the party will blame the left even though it's been made clear they consider us irrelevant and unneeded.

[Ardent15]

25. The Democratic Party threw the Left overboard a long time ago

I often wonder if they ever even cared about the Left unless it was necessary (like FDR's Presidency).

[mzclinton05]

28. Will There Ever Be A Woman President?

Hypothetically speaking and this is for opinion only. Do you think there will ever be a woman president of the united states? If so, who would be a good canidate? Give a shout out!

[leftstreet]

32. Probably Hillary in 2012 n/t

[Lord Magus]

37. I assume you mean 2016?

Right?

[troubledamerican]

41. No, 2012 is correct, in a repeat of the Election of 1824, in which

a third party spoiler divides the electoral votes below the Constitutional Minimum electoral votes required to win the Presidency.

In 2012, the Presidential election will be thrown into the House of Representatives (as happened in the Election of 1824, as required by the CONSTITUTION).

The House of Representatives will choose candidate Hillary over Sarah Palin. Immediately the media will cast a shadow of "illegitimacy" on Clinton, who will be deposed in a military coup on 4/4/15, in which USAF "Al Qaeda Sympathizers" will crash into the Capitol during a GOP Walkout, wiping out all national-level Democrats, in a parallel of Chile 1973. "President in Exile" Sarah Palin will be sworn in at midnight on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial by John Roberts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential... –1825

[Hawkowl]

216. The Supremes decide the election!

The Constitution is nothing but a goddamned piece of paper! Haven't you been paying attention? We don't let the House decide where to put the litter box for the Capitol kitty.

[liberation]

220. There is also the issue that Hillary is DLC to the core...

She ain't going to go against her nature and defy the DLC. Also, I am not interested in having a Goldwater Girl and president of her Alma Mater's College Republicans chapter pretend to be the messiah of liberals. Talk about jumping off the frying pan to fall into the flames.

[YOY]

124. Only if she tows the corporate line.

Thank you capn shit stirrer.

[pundaint]

241. That's the Key point. It is no longer Right vs. Left. It is Corporations vs. People. We are kept

arguing Political philosophies while we are being crushed by Economic ones. We the People have no advocates in the Economic battle in either party.

The People on all sides are getting that something is wrong, but we don't yet understand who our common oppressor is. If only that understanding could emerge, we would have Change indeed.

[newspeak]

299. yeah, but those industrialists were fooled by FDR

He was one of them--he wouldn't side with the working people. Of course, they forgot that Eleanor Roosevelt did work for the poor-she was part of the Hull House who helped the working poor.

[Individualist]

26. Not in DLC's party.

[Moochy]

27. Thats a great list of issues

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ncteechur]

30. The answer is to elect progressive SENATORS.

[derby378]

33. You had me at "Medicare for anyone who wants it"

[Starry Messenger]

34. Perhaps these issues never were

They seem to have been an attractive carrot for some us to join this party. But they interfere with the aims of the corporate wing. Maybe if we're good children we'll be thrown a bowl of gruel before the end of this term.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. No, we've been marginalized as being the far left.

[L0oniX]

42. +¹°

[Kolesar]

86. Love your kitty picture

My cat makes expressions like that even when she is not wet.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

160. lol! I would love to see that look on your cats face! Jack only did it because

of the bath. He isn't a very emotional kitty by nature and usually has a very regal demeanor about him. My other 2 kitties... a different story!

[ClassWarrior]

103. Do you belong to your local Dem Party?

NGU.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

158. Frankly, there aren't any close to where I live. I am often transportation challenged.

This btw has nothing to do with what I see is happening to the Democratic Party and where they are trying to take our country. The path in front of us is definitely Corporatist (euphemism for Fascist).

[okie]

36. That's a good list

But I would ask if the Democratic party ever really represented anything on it. The Democratic party is obviously an integral part of the American system, and there are some deep-seated structural reasons why it is impossible under the current system to advocate for radically slashing military expenditures, or a regulation framework for the financial system capable of preventing crises. A liberal advocating what you're asking for is demanding we tear down the American political and economic system in its entirety. And if that's the case, why not go all the way to socialism?

[Starry Messenger]

40. Yep. n/t

[bvar22]

50. I would be satisfied with movement in that general direction...

...instead of movement in the other direction.

There WAS a time when Democratic Party Leadership were proud Liberals who STOOD UP for those values.

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

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

Among these are:

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

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

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

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

The right of every family to a decent home;

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

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

The right to a good education.

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

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

Or this one:

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred. "--FDR

Or THIS from a Republican President:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
---President Dwight Eisenhower

I am old enough to remember when "Democrats" sounded and acted like that.
I miss those times.

[okie]

62. I'm fairly critical of FDR

He was able to say these things about the bankers because he didn't fear them. He was a powerful man with an important name. He could get away with that. It's quite a bit different today. And while I think Economic Bill of Rights is nice, that doesn't change that FDR and the Dems could only ever win the reforms the business community was willing to accept.

As for the Ike quote, I've always found it very interesting. It's the kind of admission that is simply impossible today. But I still think it's an easy thing for him to say as outgoing president. That military industrial complex may have taken money that could have gone to a school, but it surely powered the economic climate of the Eisenhower years.

[Enthusiast]

73. "it surely powered the economic climate of the Eisenhower years."

"War, what is it good for, absolutely nothin'."

What the fuck are you a god damned Republican?

[okie]

154. No

You should relax and ask yourself if you're understanding the point before you respond. I come to these boards for discussion, not to be berated.

The military industrial complex provided the United States many economic benefits. This is not controversial. Personally, I think this is bad. War is good for some things, making money being at the top of the list. I think it tells you something pretty grim about America when you understand that we could never live the lives we do without this massive war machine. Times were reasonably good during the Ike years, and I think it wasn't particularly difficult for him to criticize this system after he had benefited from it.

[newspeak]

302. yeah, and how is that massive war machine helping us today?

Buying bullets from China? Murdering civilians so that the oil buddies can CONTROL the oil. We, the little people, do not benefit from their largesse. We just pay the tab with our lives and money.

[newspeak]

300. We have had deregulation for years--we have had the foxes guarding the

henhouse. The savings and loan theft, junkbonds that caused American companies in the black to be raped, pillaged and sold to any buyer, corporate bailouts, lies leading us into faux wars, privatization which allowed tainted water and food to be served to our soldiers, obscene war profiteering, gambling on wall street blatant greed--and it's supposed to be business as usual? Nope don't want to change anything, until there's nothing left of this country to change!l Do you realize that the tax on the wealthy during FDR was 94%, during Eisenhower 88%? Reagan comes along with his trickle on the masses scheme and drops is to 28%--and the deficit grew to over 100% under Reagan. But, Reagan is a God!!!

Nope don't want to upset the status quo--just let greed and corruption eat away at this country and the people can slowly die with it.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[old mark]

39. "Neo Liberals"= 1960's Moderate Republicans....nt

[prairierose]

139. Actually Mark, I think the DLC today is to the right of those...

1960's republicans on most issues except civil rights. No Democrat would have attacked teachers unions or advocated privatizing public schools then and I do not think any republican of that era would have either.

Neoliberal insanity has caught on in both parties and we have to find a way to destroy those idea. They have certainly been discredited (everywhere but in the US and Britain) after more than 30 years of practice in the world. Of course, the huge transnational corps that benefit still love this craziness but for the people of the world it has been a disaster everywhere it has spread. We have to find a way to work together with others to end this.

[old mark]

257. I think you are correct. The definitions have really changed, and the

Democrats were pulled along with the GOP right.

We really have no left party at all now.

mark

[liberation]

217. There is nothing "moderate" about neo-liberalism...

It is also a rather misleading term, since at its core neo-liberalism is the economic dual of neo-conservatism.

[L0oniX]

43. K & R ...come on people ...are you really all for spending 700+ billion a year for the Pentagon?

My guess is that if you are then you also don't mind the bankster robbery either. WTF Mean while Russia is spending 50 billion this year. Talk about over kill!

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. I am not sure anymore

the elites on both parties are neo liberals, and that is the economic policy embraced since Reagan.

[Doremus]

45. I sure hope so! n/t

[NNN0LHI]

46. If you are trying to encourage people to become unionized I think you may be on the wrong board

I have tried it. Seems many people here like being kicked in the balls regularly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Good luck though.

Don

[bvar22]

48. Thats really disappointing.

Had I seen that thread, I would have left a K&R.

Every single person who Works for a Living OWES Unions....Big Time.

[donheld]

47. Here I am!

[Stinky The Clown]

51. Rec

[WCGreen]

52. I believe there is room for it...

I'm a firm believer that those on the outside of the process are facing so many obstacles that it just not worth it...

Unless you show you can deliver votes and also count votes, you can not mount an effective challenge to the status quo.

[laughingliberal]

53. K & R nt

[newtothegame]

56. No, you wouldn't make "history" on any of those issues. nt

[scarletwoman]

58. Silly. You've gotta get with the NEW Democratic Party!

Stop worrying your pretty head about all that old-fashioned stuff.

You're behind the times! Get with it! Third Way, man -- that's where it's at!

Why beat your head against the wall when you can be on the WINNING SIDE?!?! Your benevolent Coporate Overlords are patiently waiting for you to see the Light. End your silly suffering and GIVE IN!

[Jackpine Radical]

120. Another old woods hippie checking in.

[Raine]

60. The Dems threw us under the bus and ran over us

unfortunately for them I'm to run over to be able to make it to the polls.

[voc]

64. Is there still room ...

No

[Enthusiast]

67. Thank you, bvar22.

These should not be liberal policies. Every informed American citizen should be in favor of the things in your list. Trouble is, the American citizen is not informed.

Like this: Transparent and Verifiable elections. This should be a priority for all citizens. Why isn't it? I guess we will find out in November.

And this: Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities. Again, there is an ongoing misinformation campaign about events leading up to the stock market crash and attempts to rescue the economy. Citizens can't judge that strict regulation is essential because they don't understand the role derivatives played. GOPers and Teabaggers types are convinced that somehow Barney Frank, Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae orchestrated the entire collapse.

The entire thing is very sad.

[cali]

69. Yes, the dem party needs people to push it to the left.

[goclark]

152. Yes ~ if not

what party is Left that is more LEFT of the Democratic Party?

There are the TeaBags on the Right of us and there are the Naders on the Left of us....

[pundaint]

244. Nader is not to the Left of me. What does he advocate which is inconsistent with

traditional abandoned core Democratic values?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

70. There is room, but

you'll have to join us at the kids' table.

The main table is packed with DLC and lobbyists.

[DailyGrind51]

74. There is always "room", but it is relegated to a "back room"!

[JustAnotherGen]

75. Glad I got here w/in the 24 hours of posting

So I could recommend this. Your list is sound and reasonable.

[quaker bill]

76. Of course there is room

I am a democrat and support virtually everything on the list, and a number more things not mentioned. I just don't expect the party as a whole, which contains alot of people with different opinions, to conform to my priorities. I do not see their failure to agree with me and act on all these things and more as a personal affront or challenge to my convictions, or even a request that I change my mind. I simply know that I will agree with the democratic party more frequently than any other party with a remotely realistic chance of governing. This is all the room I need.

[mod mom]

77. Great list. I concur. It's past time we took our party back from the corporate thugs

who hi jacked it for their own enrichment & power. NOTE to DLC types: the votes in our household would rather go Green than corporate-no more straight ticket Dems left here (and we donate and work many hours for candidates)

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Echo In Light]

79. +1

[Dawgs]

83. Bullshit. Most Democrats agree with everything on the OP's list.

Including most in government.

[Forkboy]

89. Then most have a funny way of showing it.

[skeptical cynic]

93. Most don't even worry about pretending anymore

Look no further than reality for proof

[Bluenorthwest]

108. Not even close to true

Obama is very clear that he is opposed to equal rights for all. He very clearly says that he sees his religion as being against equality for some minorities, and that he himself is against equal rights. Biden, same. Tim Kaine, even more so, opposes any form of legal protections for the minorities he holds in faith based contempt.
It is vile to spew your propaganda without basis in fact. Would you care to pay the difference between our taxes and those of a peer straight couple? If not, then go learn some facts and try again.
There is a number, and I pay that number. Wanna pay it for me, and prove your support? Or would you rather admit that you are speaking out turn?

[donco6]

179. You wouldn't know it on this board.

Try checking out an education thread once in a while.

[pundaint]

245. Disagree with the most in government. There is empirical evidence to the contrary.

[Dinger]

80. I Am Seeing More Threads Like This On DU Lately

And that's a GOOD thing! K & R!

[Dawgs]

82. I recommended, but 85%+ of Democrats in Congress already agree with you.

The problem has always been the 15% that have just enough power to keep this country from going in the right direction.

Maybe we should continue to work to add more of the 85%, instead of complaining about the 15% that aren't doing enough.

[Bragi]

84. Sure, but...

You can only support maybe two or three of those issues at most. Any more than that makes you an extremist.

And you can't be a fanatic, which means you have to shut up and be happy when you are voted down, especially during elections, when voters are asked to think about issues.

[Kolesar]

85. Your legislators don't know of that agenda, and the voters have not made them aware of it

We need better activism to make the legislators aware and a better outreach program to let the voters know what is possible.

There...I made a positive message out of it!

[cascadiance]

87. Add the following:

* Instant Runoff voting

* An END to abuse of the use of State Secrets Privilege to dismiss civil cases against the government.

* An END to H-1B and H-2B Visa programs.

* Prosecution, JAILING, and FINES of Illegal employers instead of just prosecuting undocumented workers.

* An END to agricultural subsidies to big agribusiness companies that were meant for family farmers in a past era when they still existed. Dumping agricultural products elsewhere have ultimately triggered waves of illegal immigration here.

* Federal encouragement of decentralized energy sources like solar and wind, instead of centralized energy sources such as "clean coal", oil, nuclear energy, etc. that are more environmentally harmful, yet more profitable to the corporate world.

* Roll back the REAGAN income tax cuts to put PROPER taxation on the wealthy elites in this country.

* STOP genetically modified organism research and "patenting" of genes, etc. by the likes of Monsanto, and restore more organic life to the balance it once had as much as we can restore it now. Allow countries like India to extradite execs of these companies for the disasters that happened in places like Bhopal.

* TELL Israel if they want a red cent more from us that they need to stop settlement expansion NOW!

* Have a REAL global warming summit with REAL tangible goals/rules to address climate change, and not just window dressing that we've had up until now

[SteveM]

90. Not really. Hasn't been for years, now. nt

[NorthCarolina]

91. That would be a good definition of MY Democratic Party, sadly

the DLC "New Dems" and Blue Dogs have joined the GOP in demonizing anything Liberal/Progressive, rendering the traditional Democratic Party to nothing more than a fading memory.

[icee]

92. I don't think so, but I'll stand with you on those.

[nc4bo]

94. To your last question; it certainly seems like it at times.

And what you listed are solid Dem positions that have been willfully ignored thus far.

It also shows just how far to the (R)ight the Democratic Party has positioned itself.

It's disgusting.

[optimator]

95. also add Environmental protection to that list

I might be extremist to not want to live in a toxic world.

[freddie mertz]

143. [phone] million zillion. Now today we are being told even THAT is under the bus.

Glad we have some folks here who still believe in principles over personalities.

[Dr.Phool]

100. Not anymore.

That's exactly why I left it. And I didn't make the decision lightly or on a whim.

I got so disgusted with what this party has become, I resigned. I'll never vote for a Republican, but there's a lot of Democrats I'll never vote for either. That includes the current occupant of the White House.

[kctim]

101. Of course there is room

you just refuse to understand where and why the moderate views differ from your views. This always leads to the minority group feeling "left out" by the majority.

Its all a matter of degrees my friend, and while almost all Democrats agree with the list here, the majority of Democrats disagree with you on just what govt should, or can, do.
For this, we are labeled republicans, corporatists, blue dogs etc..., because it is much easier to dismiss rather than listen.

Another thing to consider is that people place negatives ahead of positives. Someone could totally agree with you're opinions on this list, but they could vote differently because of other issues where they disagree with you.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. Well, they get called Republicans for agreeing with Republicans

Here are people who oppose equal rights: Palin, Bush, Obama, Biden, Kaine, all of the 'Blue Dogs', and the Tea Baggers on the capitol steps.

Here are people who support equal rights: Kucinich, Olbermann, Merkley, Maddow, me, Sykes, all of the 'progressives', Barney Frank and Code Pink on the capitol steps.

So when a person announces that they agree with Palin, they agree with Palin. When a politician agrees with the Baggers that Frank should not have equal rights, that politician agrees with the Baggers. Just a fact.
So your smug claim of speaking for the majority is fun. How do you feel about standing with slur spitting Tea Baggers against me and Rachel and Barney? Because that is where the anti equality crowd stands, over there, with the Baggers.
Can you listen to that? Or are the Baggers shouting too many slurs over there in anti equality corner?

[kctim]

141. Sigh

We are not called Republicans because we agree with Republicans, we are called Republicans because we do not agree 100% with progressives to the same 'degree,' on every issue and without question.

Interesting how you claim myself, President Obama and VP Biden oppose equal rights but give no reason why you believe so. Why do you feel as if it is YOU who gets to determine who supports or is opposed to equal rights? Can you tell this old "blue dog" why I do not support equal rights?

Smug claim of speaking for the majority? Sorry, but I speak only for myself and I only use facts to support what I say. So, unless you can prove differently and show that more than 25-30% of Democrats identify themselves as 'progressives,' I will stick with what I see.

But yes, I did listen to that and hopefully, you will get past the opinionated stereotypes you base your beliefs on and SEE that you are wrong.

[laughingliberal]

144. I believe President Obama's statement that marriage is between a man & a woman

inidcates a lack of belief in equal rights for gays and lesbians. It would seem most of them feel the right to marry who they choose would be an equal right. I don't believe the poster "decided" he didn't support equal rights for gays and lesbians I believe the poster took what the President said as evidence.

[kctim]

156. Does that mean

he is opposed to equal rights in general? No. Not even close. The poster has decided that one must believe in gay marriage as defined by them, in order for another to support equal rights. President Obama may not believe in gay and lesbian rights to the same degree as the poster, but to equate him to Palin because of that is ridiculous.
The reason why 'progressives' always seem to feel like they are being ignored and not part of the Democratic Party is because they demand one to believe the progressive goal is the only goal.

[laughingliberal]

185. Equal does mean equal

I'm fairly certain gay and lesbian couples feel equal would be to have the same rights available to heterosexual couples available to them. It does no good to parse words on this with me. If I were gay or lesbian, I am certain my goal for equality would be to have the same rights as anyone else. I think that's the precise definition of equal.

Looks like your position is that all those 'progressives' would do better if they weren't so uppity and would just know their place.

edited punctuation

[kctim]

292. Not at all

My position is that 'progressives' would do themselves a huge favor by understanding that not every Democrat believes as they do, so solutions and goals are going to slightly differ.

It is absolutely ridiculous to say President Obama is opposed to equality and is just like Palin.

[Tailormyst]

195. Equal is equal

It's really pretty simple. You can't say two things are soft of equal, or partially equal. When it comes to equality for GBLTs he is ,in fact, a bigot. The same way those who opposed his parents being allowed to marry were also bigots.

[Bluenorthwest]

236. I did not even mention marriage, you inferred that and spoke for

me. I used only one term, equality, and equal is equal. I invite all to read and re read my post and find where I said a word about what this poster calls 'gay marriage'.
The fact is that those who oppose equal rights are on one side of the line, that those who favor equality for all people are on another. The public figures I named have each one taken the stance as stated.
So equal is equal. There are no degrees of equality. Obama and Palin both oppose equal rights and both claim their mutual faith as reason. This is simple fact, if you can not digest that, ask yourself why. It is uncomfortable, and it should be.
You came here whining that you get called names for being conservative. No one has ever called me a Republican. So I'm not the one complaining about being misunderstood, or mistaken for a Republican. If I got called a Republican, I'd be taking personal inventory.
So there you go, enjoy. Equal is a word with a meaning.

[kctim]

293. Actually

LaughingLiberal brought up 'gay marriage,' not "this poster."

So, equal is equal and it is only a fine line that separates those who oppose or support it? No degrees at all? Do I have that right? Care to share why you believe it is you who gets to define where this line is placed? It should be pretty easy for you to answer, seeing how you so bravely placed yourself in the 'support' column and all.

You are correct, you are not the one complaining about being misunderstood, you were crying about how there is no place for progressives in the Democratic Party and you just label everybody who does not think like you as 'blue dogs' or 'republicans' in order to justify it to yourself.
I do not need to take 'personal inventory.' I know where I stand and have no need for excuses to convince myself that I am right and everybody else is wrong.

[HughMoran]

118. Yes, your post says it exactly right

Even agreeing on the list of issues (which, I agree, we all do), why must the invectives fly when it's realized that the ultimate solution is not achievable?

[laughingliberal]

188. Perhaps some think it's the right of citizens to keep working towards goals until they become

achievable. How long did the civil rights activists keep talking about it and working towards it until it was achievable? Over 100 years I believe. But I don't remember that they, at any point, decided their goal was to have a little more equality.

edited punctuation

[HughMoran]

202. Nobody is disagreeing with you

I was emphasizing the use of invective versus civil discourse.

[laughingliberal]

205. That's a point

And one people on both sides of a debate could stand to take a look at.

[LaydeeBug]

261. the problem is, we are NOT the minority, and you know it. nt

[ClassWarrior]

102. You gotta make your own room, but we progressives are good at that. Join the Party, bvar!

As Thom Hartmann says, "Infiltrate!"



NGU.

[Tailormyst]

104. You are not alone

There are many of us. However, the ones defending every move to the right are simply loud and bullying, so you hear them more. They like to use tactics like " are you with us or against us?" or " Oh great, it will be YOUR fault when we lose" or " How can you not support this historic Presidency?" or "you just hate him because he is black" or "you never liked him anyway, you pony loving PUMA" or "The Primary is over, he won, DK sucks, so suck it up princess and support him no matter what".

Ignore them and continue to fight the good fight. I mean literally, put them on ignore and let them spew their talking points to each other.

[seafan]

107. Thanks for this post, bvar22. At least it's cool and shady here under the bus.

Your front porch photo downthread made me smile.

[Dr Morbius]

110. There had better be room.

Because I am not going anywhere.

[spoony]

111. It isn't considered an attack until you threaten to vote your values

in a primary. Then your post gets locked.

[Moochy]

135. GO TEAM HYPERPARTISAN!

GO DU! GO TEAM LOYALTY FLAK ALERT BRIGADE!

[donco6]

181. And if you vote for the guy you ALMOST agree with -

And he ends up doing what you were afraid he'd do, and you speak out about it, you get:

"Well, you should have known what you were voting for! He said he'd do that on XX/XX/200X"

Super.

[mlevans]

113. Thanks for posting my agenda. n/t

[lonestarnot]

116. Disgusting isn't it.

[HughMoran]

117. Everybody here wants the majority of those things

Advocate. Insult those with different views or who take a pragmatic approach based on what is achievable? Try to stop doing that - I bet you can't.

[depakid]

121. No, everyone doesn't

Not by a long shot.

[Raineyb]

134. No they don't. They don't even fight for it. They take it off the table

before negotiations even begin. They show by their actions that they don't believe in those things. What do you expect me to believe? What they (and you) claim they stand for or what I see with my own "lying" eyes?

[Mithreal]

180. +1

[dflprincess]

201. "pragmatic approach"

Just another term for selling out and not standing for anything.

Let me repeat my sig line in larger type:


If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them." Paul Wellstone

[joeybee12]

122. Oh come on, of course...in 2012 when Obama wants your money...

...he figures he can fool you again.

[dflprincess]

203. "Hope & Change really, this time I mean it" n/t

[hfojvt]

125. Why wouldn't there be?

And you ask a false question at the end. You seem to feel that liberals are being accused of attacking the Democratic Party when they stand up for liberal causes.

The trouble is, you often cannot seem to stand up for liberal causes without attacking the Democratic Party.

Take the first issue (please). Single payer. The majority of posts about single payer were not 'advocating'. They were not in the form "Single payer is the best, and here is why we should support it." Instead they come in the form of an attack. Like "I hate Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats because they won't support single payer. They are spineless and corporate bought. I am no longer gonna send them money or work for their election. I won't vote for any candidate who does not support single payer...blah, blah, blah, everybody sucks who does not agree with me..."

And then you wonder why you are perceived as "attacking the Democratic Party". Mainly because there is a huge difference between saying "I favor X" and "I hate people, fugging PINOS, who don't support X"

If you want to get moderates to help with your pet causes, then this is not the way to do it.

[JDPriestly]

155. Wait a minute, hfojvt. You overgeneralize.

I, like many, perhaps the majority on DU, supported single payer from the beginning. Why? Because I lived in several different countries in Europe many years and saw that the various forms of single payer insurance worked very well. For profit insurance companies are not needed. For-profits just interfere in the relationship between the doctor and the patient.

Nevertheless, I was willing to compromise and also back Obama's idea of a public option. And I remember listening to a special speech Obama gave to his volunteer corps in which, quite late in the negotiations about the health care insurance reform bill, Obama stated publicly that he still preferred a public option.

Alas! He most likely had already traded away the public option in favor of ????? Who knows what Obama really got for his give-away. He has never come forward to disclose the details of the deals he made with the various too big to fail insurance companies.

If Obama has lost support, he has no one to blame but himself. He promised transparency and has not delivered on it. He said he supported the public option, but when opportunities have arisen to get a public option bill signed into law, he has not acted on them. He could have pressured Lieberman. He could have pressured Nelson. And especially, he could have pressured Landrieu. In fact, Obama could have pressured some of the Republicans into voting for either single payer or the public option had he wished to simply come to the public and tell us the whole truth about the offers and threats that the insurance companies were making.

[hfojvt]

170. it's not a question of blame

The question is whether those on the left are gonna "advocate" for their liberal positions or if they are instead going to attack Democrats for not standing up for the liberal positions of the left.

The OP sorta claims that "we advocate for liberal positions and then we are accused of attacking the Democratic Party". Except what happens is not "advocating" it is attacking. You make an argument for "why the attacks are justified" but I was not necessarily arguing that the attacks are not justified. I am only saying that "they are attacks".

If liberals did more advocating and less attacking, then centrists would probably not be mad at them. If centrists are mad at them, then liberals have no one to blame but themselves.

Okay, that may have been uncalled for, that last line. I don't think Obama is the only one to blame though. Liberals on DU often post threads with the expressed intent of "expressing anger at Obama and making other liberals angry as well". Part of the reason Obama has lost liberals' support is because liberals are reading about all of his flaws and betrayals. The glass will never be 100% full and we will not get exactly what we want any more than FReepers did with Bush. It becomes hard to stay positive when one is bombarded with negativity. Is negativity a reality or is it a perception? A perception that is reinforced by a group.

Look, I share a desire to move both Obama and the Democratic Party to the left. I really do, but I don't think a strategy of constantly castigating them for not being progressive enough is a way to accomplish that. I think that if people came to DU and got information, they might walk away thinking "wow, single payer really is better" or "wow, Reaganomics really does suck (if I may put forward my own not so humble attempts in this regard http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/126 ). Instead they walk away thinking things like "wow, Obama and Democrats really do suck (thus why bother electing them)" or "wow, liberals really are arrogant and hateful". It seems to me we are our own worst enemy in moving the country in the right direction.

[pundaint]

248. Remember the joke about the two hikers encountering a Bear. One runs and the other says "you can't

outrun a bear." The runner says "I only have to outrun you." Our elected representatives are running. It's all about their personal survival, not the survival of US.

[h9socialist]

127. Of course there is . . . in a No Party System (see below)

. . . I have heard the argument that the US is NOT a two-party system at all. Nor a one-party system disguised as a two party system. Rather it is a NO PARTY system. Unlike Europe, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been historically consistent in ideology -- nor terribly committed. Rather, they are "big tents" for putting different interests together at election time.

So the truth is that there's plenty of room in the Democratic Party for someone with your ideas. They'll take your money and your vote. Just don't complicate matters with any expectations after election day!!!!

[pattmarty]

128. Sign me up!

[Karmadillo]

131. As long as they have no expectations of the leadership doing anything to advance those issues.

nt

[brooklynite]

132. Who in the Party has stopped you from advocating?

...which is not necessarily the same thing as getting things your way.

[Doctor_J]

137. Ask Grayson, Sanders, Boxer, Kucinich

What a dumb question.

[dflprincess]

204. Sanders is a Democratic Socialist

and while he caucuses with the Senate Democrats he will be the first to correct you if you call him a Democrat.

[bvar22]

223. Ask Kucinich what happens...

...if you actually STAND UP for those issues.

[daleanime]

140. If there's no room for those issues.....

then there's no room for me either. Especially both of the highlighted issues!

[fascisthunter]

142. Trust Me., most agree with those issues

just a vocal minority is trying to sway this site and it's members to the right.

[defendandprotect]

153. IMO, these values are the heart of the Democratic Party -- DLC is the outsider . . .

with its corporate, anti-humane, anti-labor values --

anti-environmental values --

Look at Rhode Island right now and how little attention anyone is paying to it -- ??

Why -- because SPRING has arrived?

13% unemployment in Rhode Island -- state deficits -- bridges falling down --

The environmental problems are not going away -- they are increasing -- and no private

insurance company, no government can possibly cope with all of this!

[Kolesar]

167. The DLC isn't the enemy--it's complacency and apathy ... eom

[defendandprotect]

168. Corporate-DLC is the enemy . . . corporatism is anti-democracy . . .

that's why we have anti-trust laws . . . though they've been

overlooked in the recent right wing purge of government!

[Kolesar]

169. DLC is pretty irrelevant by now...eom

[defendandprotect]

194. DLC/RAHM moved out of the White House?

[liberation]

221. LOL Sure...

that is why they "only" have what? 80% of the seats in this administration. The other 18% are current or former republicans, and the 2% of token liberals were put on notice once one opened his mouth and was kicked to the curb faster than Paris Hilton's knickers hit the ground in a Roman Orgy.

But I'll play along... "wink" "wink" The DLC is pretty irrelevant, it must be them retarded lefties acting out agaiiiiiiinnnn.....

LOL

[Individualist]

229. If anyone believes that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

[liberation]

231. ... and I have a lovely ocean front property in Arizona for those who need to get away from the cold

of the NY winters...

[Kolesar]

243. You sound bored

Go for a walk or something.

[Individualist]

228. DLC is certainly the enemy.

A subversive organization that has undermined the Democratic Party.

[Moochy]

273. Whats the column after the fourth?

[dadzilla]

161. Yes, but which one do you want first?

Don't get me wrong, I like your list... but which fight comes first? Which comes second? Is it okay if we fight a little here, fight a little there, back and forth?

[Raksha]

163. K & R

[DesertDiamond]

164. YES!!! To ALL of the above!!!

[RoccoR5955]

165. If there's not, there's always another solution

It's called re-forming the LIBERAL party.

[Phlem]

166. The Democratic Party

Is has been infiltrated a while ago and they call themselves centrists.

I will stand with you in support of your Liberal issues and 1000% on your side as those are my concerns too.

-p

[ooglymoogly]

171. Bottom line...you will not see any of these most necessary and

obvious changes happen under a hard right regime like O's; That is, unless you can figure out which shell the peanut is under. He is not using any capital he has legitimately garnered, he is burning up our capital; The real democratic party's capital and he is using us as a doormat. We must primary this pug wannabe if this country, or for that matter the true democratic party will endure; If the Democratic party with the tried and true values you succinctly list, has any chance of survival. If FDR were alive today, he would squash O like a termite eating away at our very structure. O is out to destroy us and he is doing a good job of it. He is a soldier for the very rich and for a new world order that is no less than an oligarchy of masters and slaves.

[Maat]

174. I say 'no.'

People should dis-enroll and re-register as independent/declined-to-state's. Moreover, these former Dems should stop giving the party money.

[rhett o rick]

178. Now that the ex-republicans have moved under the big D tent, the party

no longer needs the left.

[ClassWarrior]

278. So the solution is to abandon it to RW and leave ourselves without a party??

NGU.

[rhett o rick]

281. IMHO the New Democratic Party is looking for numbers and strength from the

conservatives that are not reich wing. But this leaves out the left. The New Democratic Party knows that some on the left will stay with them because there is no other reasonable choice. The New Democratic Party will be stronger than ever but just not supporting Democratic principles. Arlen Specter is now a Democrat. What does that tell you?

[ooglymoogly]

291. That would be the appearance and yet, here we are

and here we will be in the elections to come, and guess what?
we are the ones who get out the vote and make the donations, beat the streets and phonebank. Um, at least we were. Do you think he can find fellow dino's to fill our shoes cus I won't be wasting any shoe leather, time or money on any dino, nor will any of the many elderlies I commiserate with; Who consider O, not as a friend, but as an enemy that once fooled them with nothing more than a sheepskin, a pea and 3 walnut shells.

[Mithreal]

183. Pragmatists know when to Just Say No to Principles

New Dems are little better than old school republicans.

The old corporate party is dead. Long live the new corporate party.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

184. No one is telling you to leave...

But don't expect the vast majority of Democrats, or the Democratic leadership, to kow-tow to
the fringe of our party either.

That's what got the Republicans in trouble. That's what's keeping them in trouble. If
the GOP distanced themselves from teabaggers the way we distance ourselves from Code Pink,
they'd be giving us a lot more trouble than they are.

For Democrats, you will be represented exactly in proportion to the amount of actual support
inside the party you have. Not one bit more. That means your desire to throw opposition
figures in jail on politicized charges, and institute litmus tests for belonging to the
Democratic party, will go absolutely nowhere - because they are very unpopular. The same
thing goes for about half of the rest of your wish list. Most Democrats, for instance,
support our military, and think our presence around the globe helps reduce regional conflicts.

However, the fact that you can't get the majority of Democrats to agree with your extremist
views does not mean you are not welcome in the party. You are just not our leader, and
do not have the power, or the moral right, to tell us what to believe.

And all the rants and screeds in the world you write on this website aren't going to change that.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[laughingliberal]

191. That's the baffling part

Many lifelong Democrats hold exactly the same positions on most issues they did 30 years ago & remember most of this was considered the core of the party platform and they were pretty mainstream. The party moves to the right and we get labeled 'fringe.'

Is there a position which is too far right?

And I disagree that the amount of support a position gets within the party is indicative of how much support there is among the ranks for the position. I believe money and campaign contributions and a whole lot of other factors go into that. If the amount of support a policy had among people determined policy, we'd have a new health care law with a public option.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

206. Fringe means exactly that... a very minority viewpoint...

And don't kid yourself about people's views 30 years ago.

I guarantee you that there has NEVER been a time when the majority of Democrats were in
favor of cutting our military in half, ending free trade, outlawing private schools, and many of
the other items on the Original Poster's wishlist.

In fact, that laundry list sounds like a Republican caricature of Democrats, the kinds of lies
the right wing promulgates to smear us.

To answer your question about "too far right" though, I have withdrawn my support of the DLC
because they have become nearly as counterproductive as Code Pink. I've actually warmed quite
a bit to Markos Molitsas of dailykos. He recognizes that neither the appeasers nor the offensive
screamers help move us forward as a party.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[laughingliberal]

224. I'm not kidding myself about people 30 years ago

I have always been involved in the Democratic party and have always lived in red states. Even in those red states, we found Democrats there were, by and large, in favor of most of the issues raised by the OP. Perhaps they weren't in favor of cutting the military budget in half but I don't think we were spending quite this much on defense in those days, either, and the tax structure was not as regressive.

That laundry list contains, by and large, policies which were pretty mainstream in the party prior to Reagan. I'm not saying all but most. It is also interesting to note a lot of things on that list wouldn't have been front and center because they were a given. We had regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities. EFCA would not have been much of an issue in the days before entire industries had grown up to teach companies how to break the law without getting caught in their efforts to stifle unionization. Organized Labor was a given in the days before Reagan. That battle had been fought and assumed won at that time. Anti trust laws were still enforced. I think most of us assumed our elections were transparent and verifiable. NAFTA had not been heard of and I think if it had been, prior to Reagan, workers would have rejected the race to the bottom. In fact, most of the population rejected it to begin with.War profiteering was frowned upon by most of the public, not just Democrats. Publicly financed elections? Maybe not but then the influence of money had not so completely overtaken the political process at that time. Women's right to choose was supported by Democrats and we won that right in the 70's. It's been being chipped away since the 'moral majority' reared their heads. There may have been 'corporate personhood' rights in those days but, with the presence of regulations, it wasn't running roughshod over the citizenry. I just don't see much on that list that would have been considered 'extreme' 30 years ago. And it, especially, would not have been considered 'extreme' by Democrats. The adoption of Reaganism by a lot of Democrats is the reason this is now viewed as extreme. We forget that even Republicans in those days considered Reagan extreme in a lot of ways. Remember George H. W. Bush called supply side economics 'voo doo econmonics.'

There is a place for pragmatism but there is a place for taking a stand, also. I have always recognized that we, sometimes, had to make a deal to give up part of what we wanted to make some progress. However, what I am seeing today is giving up more than we get back in these deals. It has resulted in party leadership which is now on a par with Reagan if not a little further right.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

253. Sure, some of what the poster wrote about is mainstream Democratic positions

I completely agree with that.

However, in addition to conflating it with non-Democratic positions (end free trade,
litmus tests, chopping the U.S. armed forces in half, prosecuting people for being
defense contractors "war profiteers"), the other issue is the bald citation-free
assertion that many of the other issues are somehow not supported or addressed by
the party today.

Democrats, for example, support labor. By putting a "support labor" line item here
the OP is clearly trying to pretend that we don't. This is one of hallmarks of
extremism - inventing your own reality when you can't win an argument.

In terms of "fair elections" 30 years ago, I think you've got a little Reaganitis yourself,
and are looking at our history with rose-colored glasses. They didn't mockingly
call President Johnson "Landslide Lindon" for nothing. He was only a senator because
of several stuffed ballot boxes.

One other thing I've noticed is a historical blindness to the cultural progress we've
made in the last 30 years. The party that used to be the bastion of the dixiecrats
just had a runoff between a woman and black man for our party nominee. We're 100% behind
gay rights. Positions that would have been never supported even 20 years ago. But
all these things are ignored by the fringe, because they're never satisfied with anything
less than 110% of their demands being met NOW. Or they'll pretend they're not "welcome",
hold their breath, and turn blue.

Political reality of how quickly you can move the electorate is something extremists
have decided to be deliberately obtuse to.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bvar22]

256. There is no way to be Pro-NAFTA, and Pro-LABOR.

They are mutually exclusive.
Pick one, and STAND for your pick.
Stop pretending you can be both at the same time.

"prosecuting people for being
defense contractors "war profiteers"...THAT used to be a Central Democratic Party Policy.

" Where is the leader with the courage to say, as Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster"? .... Senator Robert La Follette tagged them as "enemies of democracy in the homeland." During World War II Harry Truman referred to some forms of war profiteering as "treason."

When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030512/editors

There is a serious problem when the policies of FDR, Truman, and LBJ are ridiculed as "Fringe" or "Extremist."

Thank You for illustrating the point of the OP.
The Democratic Party HAS drifted so far to the right that FDR is now considered an "extremist".


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[ConservativeDemocrat]

263. Again, you're changing your line, bvar

There is a difference between increasing a corporate income tax as a response to profiteering during one of the
most dangerous periods our nation faced (WW2) when we lost over 400,000 US servicemen, and your idea of throwing
people in jail just for being a defense contractor.

You are not advocating the policies of FDR and Truman. Nor, frankly, could FDR or Truman get his policies
passed today, because to get the support to push that far to the left on the economic front, they had to pander
to the Dixiecrats - which they did, shamelessly. Today, all those Dixiecrats are Republican teabaggers, and
work lockstep against everything you blame Democrats for not being able to push through.



In terms of saying you are "either pro-NAFTA or pro-labor", tell it to the NAALC who sued our own government
using NAFTA: Unions Charge North Carolina Violating NAFTA Labor Rules

I personally support some renegotiation of NAFTA to help spread the benefits more widely, but free trade is
supported by Democrats, bvar.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bvar22]

265. Exactly my point...Thanks!

"..free trade is supported by Democrats,"
Not a TRUE statement.

To correct this, it SHOULD read:
"Free Trade is supported by today's Centrist Democratic Party Leadership. It is NOT supported by the entire Democratic Party, and is strongly opposed by the Liberal Wing. Free Trade would not have even been considered by the Democratic Party prior to the Carter Administration."

You stand corrected.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

271. Free trade is supported by the vast majority of Democrats

Which is why the leadership of the party is in the position it is in.
If the Democratic leadership didn't represent the majority opinion of
Democrats, they wouldn't be the leadership for very long.

This disconnect between your views and the views of the majority of the
party (who put that leadership in place), apparently frustrates you so
much, you decided to write this post asking if there was still room for
people who felt like you in the party.

Now you're saying "You stand corrected" when I essentially agreed with
you that you were out of step with Democrats on this issue (but that
didn't mean that you unwelcome), because apparently you'd now rather
believe that you aren't out of step. So you're really now saying
that you're complaining for no reason.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

There's this cute little poster, I think by new american century, of Obama
with a Nazi, Communist, Athiest, Muslim, and some other symbol underneath(I
don't remember precisely) with the title underneath saying "Pick One - He
can't be all five!"

So I say to you this, bvar. You are allowed to believe one of these:

1) Democrats are evil right wingers who kick the few liberals that remain out of the party.
2) Democrats are actually anti-capitalists like you are, who want to chop our military in half

But you aren't allowed to believe both at the same time. They're mutually exclusive.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[laughingliberal]

285. "If the Democratic leadership did not represent the majority opinion of Democrats...

they would not be in the majority for long."

I don't think this necessarily follows. I believe polling, during the HCR debate showed a majority, not just of Democrats, but of the entire electorate was opposed to a mandate without a public option. The presence of our leaders in positions of leadership does not, in and of itself, prove they support the policies favored by a majority of the members. What it proves is they campaigned on positions the majority found to their liking. What we have seen in practice since the election is not in keeping with some of what they campaigned on.

There is a point to be made that many of our elected officials got there by advocating a position most were in favor of and failed to follow through to get those policies enacted. The HCR bill is a perfect example of this. I supported President Obama in our caucuses here against Hillary because I was in favor of his stated plan for HCR, specifically because the proposal to provide competition to the insurers through a public option was one I saw that could work if we were to keep the for profit insurance companies in the mix. He earned my support against his opponent for that policy. But we saw him abandon it early on. I suppose I would be considered among the majority that helped put President Obama in his position. But it does not mean I now support the policies I see enacted.


The party platform contains many examples where the majority of Democrats favor certain policies which leadership abandoned. Here are 2 examples:

Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices
of Affordable Health Insurance Options. Families and
individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide
array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public
plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through
tax credits and other means....

....and lower drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate for
lower prices, permitting importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, creating
a generic pathway for biologic drugs, and increasing use of generics in public programs.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5...

I think it's clear from the party platform what the majority of Democrats favored here and they elected people they thought would stand for these policies.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

286. You are confusing "tried and didn't succeed" with "didn't try"

Tell me, when you see your favorite baseball player hit a double rather than a home run,
do you then start screaming that he's really on the take and is trying to throw the game?

It makes about as much sense.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[laughingliberal]

287. I believe the information about the deal the White House cut with PhRMA before the debate even

really began belies that 'tried and didn't succeed' talking point. This deal was confirmed by the White House at the insistence of PhRMA's lobbyist a while back. That deal was that for $80 billion dollars in savings from the industry over 10 years, they would prevent the policy of allowing Medicare to negotiate rates and reimportation from getting into the bills. If they tried to implement those 2 policies which are in the platform and were supported by the majority of Democrats I'm just not sure what your definition of 'try' is.

edited to add link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insur...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

289. It's called negotiation

It's part of politics. The only people who don't need to negotiate are dictators.
Really, it sounds like you agree with George Bush's sentiment: "If this were a
dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Please don't pretend that Barack Obama is a dictator, and that the only reason why
he's not doing everything you want 100% is because he's really secretly against you.
Such a viewpoint is extremist in nature, and doesn't reflect well on you.

President Obama is a President. He managed, over against unprecedented Republican
obstructionist tactics to push a substantial bill through the Senate - by somehow
cajoling Senator Lieberman (CFL-Connecticut) to vote for cloture, despite the fact
that many many people in Connecticut are employees of the insurance industry.

I'm just looking for a little acknowledgment of reality out of you.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[laughingliberal]

290. Whatever it's called you can not say the majority of Democrats agree with the leaders

because if they didn't they wouldn't be leaders. It is clear people voted for a platform they supported and the leaders did something different.

That deal was cut in July. It was long before they were looking at the votes for cloture. Your position might make sense if the deal had been made later in order to get votes. It was made before the first committee began work on a bill.

Yes, I acknowledge the reality that our leaders regularly negotiate the will of the people away to kow tow to the wealthy, influential corporate interests. That much is clear. But it does not prove, in the least, that the majority of Democrats support these policies.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

294. I certainly can, because it is true

I understand that you love Monday morning quarterbacking, but the bottom line
is that Democrats support the President's handling of Health Care Reform by a
whopping 74% (to GOP support of 7%).

So long as you compare something real to a pie in the sky fantasy, you will
always succeed at making yourself disappointed. I'm just pointing out that
your disappointment is largely not shared by Democrats, but is by Republicans.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[laughingliberal]

296. There is a big difference between the party members accepted something because they became persuaded

it was the best we could do and deciding it became a core value of the party. I still maintain the party platform reflects the core beliefs and values of the party. I find I don't agree with everything in the platform but I agree with far more of what I find there than I do with what you espouse the core beliefs and values of the party to be. I don't think a poll that shows a lot of Democrats approve of the President's handling of health care reform indicates a whole lot of Democrats decided they don't want a public option or they don't want Medicare to be able to negotiate lower prices for Rx's. There's a big difference between getting on board because something was better than nothing and deciding we didn't want those things to begin with.

I'll post a link to the platform again and you can read it for yourself. Really, it's not that long and shouldn't take that long to go through it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5...

[liberation]

225. In other words, you hate pink but love them death squads

LOL

[ConservativeDemocrat]

252. If you want to understand why you are a fringe extremist...

...it is because you equate members of the United States armed forces with death squads
who commit extra-judicial murders of their own countrymen for political reasons. The words
you are attempting to put in my mouth are based on the premise that my support for the troops
means I support American death squads.

I guarantee you that this is a view that is considered odious by the vast majority of Americans
who are members of the Democratic Party.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[laughingliberal]

267. I can't speak for the poster to whom you're responding but when I see the term death squads,

my first thought is the mercenaries from companies such as Xe, not our armed forces who are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It also brings to mind those who ordered our troops into unnecessary wars. I think most Democrats I know are against these wars we are in now but supportive of the troops. My husband is a Viet Nam vet. It is certainly not in my nature to blame him or anyone who served with him for that ugly time in our history.

The term 'death squads' also brings to my mind our activities in South and Central America over the past 30 decades where our country and our intelligence agencies have lent support to governments who have operated death squads.

Just one more point, if I may. Even if a position is considered 'extreme,' it can still be the right position. I have no doubt those who wanted to end slavery or see equal rights for African Americans or grant women the right to vote were, at one time in our history, considered extreme. It does not mean they were wrong.

[Tailormyst]

193. We are not "fringe" and I assure you we are planted solidly in reality

Your type can continue to bash away at us, since all you have left are insults and we aren't going anywhere. In fact I believe our numbers are growing. There are more of us and unlike you, we have the courage to stand by our convictions instead of twisting in knots following your latest hero.

[Toasterlad]

211. There Are a Lot Less Of You Than You Think There Are

Don't let the corporate control of the media and the election process fool you.

[bvar22]

212. What about these positions?

Do you consider these rights "Fringe Issues"?

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

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

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

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

*The right of every family to a decent home;

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

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

*The right to a good education.

Was "a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans" an unpopular "extremist" position?

I believe that if you polled ALL Americans on these individual issues, you would find them far more popular than the Democratic Party Leadership would like to admit.

"

In recent polls (2005 !) by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788 /

[ConservativeDemocrat]

258. Those positions aren't what you posted up top

There is a difference between:

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

and what you posted...

* An end to "Free Trade"


Democrats are not Socalists, capiche? We are not at war with private enterprise.
We are pro-growth. We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic, free market.

It's just that we think that the market, like pro-sports, works better when you have
good referees.


In terms of your issues poll, you are quite correct that there is wide support for
the public option and/or single payer. What you have apparently missed bvar in your
snit-fit, is single payer is authorized by the Health Care Reform bill just signed.

Read the bill closely. States now have the authority to institute any program
they want that is as good or better in results than the default program. That
includes Single Payer. That little rider was placed in the bill by Oregon's own
Senator Wyden, who is nearly as popular on the East side as he is down in "little
beruit" Portland.

So get thee down to your local county party and start cajoling your local State Reps
to be the first State to institute Single Payer. I guarantee there will be at least
one State which will, and the result will be that in the long term, it is absolutely
inevitable that either a public option or single payer will be available over the long
term in the U.S. Because the public will try it and decide they like it.

So if you quit screaming at the moderates in your own party, bvar, you might realize
that we just let you win.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bvar22]

266. Afraid to answer the question?

Here, I'll ask it again:

Do you support THESE statements of Policy?

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

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

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

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

*The right of every family to a decent home;

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

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

*The right to a good education.

You are also making broad and untrue statements about "The Democratic Party".
"Democrats are not Socalists, capiche? We are not at war with private enterprise.
We are pro-growth. We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic, free market."

LOL. There is that mystical and unjustified blind faith belief in the "Giant Invisible Hand".
Heads Up.
The proof is IN and beyond dispute.
There IS no "Giant and Benevolent Invisible Hand of the Free Market".
"They" made that shit up, and it has been downhill for America's Working Class since that very clever Corporate Marketing Invention.

"All Hail the Giant Invisible Hand"
The Invisible Hand will save us ALL!
All we have to do is sacrifice America's Working Class on the altar of "Free Markets!"
...and people say the Democrats are Anti-Religion.
Brother...the MYTH of Free Markets IS a (false) religion.
Without restraints placed on Corporations by our government acting on behalf of the Working Class, Capital will ALWAYS outrun Human Rights.
QED...The last 30 years.


To be correct you should amend your statement so that it is NOT all inclusive.
You are self-righteously claiming to speak for the whole Democratic Party, when you are only speaking for the "Centrist" (Republican) Wing of the Party.
I AM a Democrat.
I've been one for over 40 years, and you certainly don't speak for me, or the hundreds of other "Democrats" who have posted to this thread...
or ARE you saying the WE and OUR Values are no longer welcome in today's "Centrist" Democratic Party?

I have NOT advocated for "Socialism", but for a return to a strongly regulated blend of Free Enterprise Capitalism with restraints placed on Corporations, like the system we had in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
You remember...the system that BUILT a thriving Working Class with REAL Upward Mobility.

Do you remember the question I asked in the OP?
"does advocating for these Liberal Issues now constitute an attack on the Democratic Party?"
You are saying YES. This is an attack on the Democratic Party,
and these quaint and obsolete values are NOT welcome in today's "Centrist" Democratic Party.

Good Luck in your headlong march toward Republicanism.
I will NOT go quietly into THAT Good Night.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

274. I'll answer your question if you answer mine...

My answer: I'm perfectly willing to sign up to those goals... weasel words included.

This is the problem with position statements. They're deliberately written to be nebulous, so that that they can mean very different things to different people. I'm sure you have decided to interpret these statements as support for your brand of angry anti free-trade activism, but I can tell you right now, such mom-and-apple-pie statements could equally be supported (via a different interpretation) by George Bush.

What is an good education?

"Good" by what standard? Does this mean Democrats should be supporting No Child Left Behind?


What is adequate medical care?

Medical care, for instance, has become far more advanced and exceedingly more expensive, just in my lifetime. Your average, free, emergency room only care (which we decry as a terrible thing) is close to what anyone might have expected to get, say, 70 years ago no matter how much they paid. So is that "adequate"? Should we be satisfied with that level of care as the free baseline, because it is as good or better than anyone would expect to have gotten in the 1940s? This would be Bush's position on things.

So my caveat to signing up to those ideals is this: I am nearly certain I don't sign up to your interpretation of them and how best to get the implemented. I don't agree with the way Bush might interpret them either.

- - -

So now my question for you. Does President Obama, in your view, represent the majority opinion of the Democratic Party?

I'm not asking if he should. I mean it's clear you think that in a perfect world, Dennis Kucinich would be considered a conservative, everyone being to his left, I'm asking if you think President Obama does generally represent the median opinion of the members of the Democratic party as a whole?

Yes or No?

[donco6]

279. So, which issue constitutes "fringe" policy, exactly? n/t

[Deep13]

187. Plenty of room.

For me, I would like to see a steady reduction in military spending, not necessarily 50% right away. Otherwise, I think it's a good list. Plus, return high end income and estate tax rates to Nixon-era levels (adjusted for inflation). Also serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

[suzie]

189. Are you a prosecutor? Because "prosecution of American War Criminals" has such a good sound.

If you're not a prosecutor and have to worry about actually going into court and trying a case.

But for those who just want to talk about it--gosh it has such a high-flying, impressive sound--"Prosecute those war criminals."

[bvar22]

208. If it sounds so good....

...why aren't more people in the Democratic Party saying it?

I don't have to be a "prosecutor" to advocate for the prosecution of War Criminals and War Profiteers.
All I have to be is an American Citizen willing to STAND UP....because it IS the right thing to do.

There is not much precedent concerning the Democratic Party's STAND against American War Criminals, but there WAS a time when Democratic Party Leadership took a firm public stand AGAINST the War Profiteers (which I consider a War Crime):

" Where is the leader with the courage to say, as Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster"? .... Senator Robert La Follette tagged them as "enemies of democracy in the homeland." During World War II Harry Truman referred to some forms of war profiteering as "treason."

When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030512/editors

Sweet music to my old Liberal ears!
But, of course, THAT was the "Old" Democratic Party which bears little resemblance to the Political Party using that name today.

[liberation]

227. Because your sarcasm has a much "wittier" sound to it... right?

See, we can play the same game. And since you are not a prosecutor either, I'd be more careful if I were you throwing all those rocks our way from your glass greenhouse. LOL

BTW, they don't call sarcasm the lowest form of with for nothing... so the barrier of entry to your level is not that high really.

[suzie]

306. I'm not a prosecutor, but I have talked with former prosecutors.

They're not nearly as convinced as those who constantly spout off "But Obama didn't prosecute those war criminals" that it would be just a walk in the park to obtain convictions against people that, as we've already seen in the Libby case, build in layers of protection for themselves and do a lot of lying.

So, take your glass greenhouse sarcasm and apply the "lowest form of with for nothing" to yourself. Whatever that means.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

307. By the standards established at the Nuremberg Trials, the Bush administration is made up of

war criminals.

One of the accusations against the Nazis was "waging aggressive war," and that is clearly something that the Bush administration did, and by continuing those two wars of choice, the Obama administration is complicit.

[UrbScotty]

192. YES!! I'm a solid liberal! Why the heck is this getting so many rec's?

So many people here whine and whine, yet the do next to nothing to actually ADVANCE liberalism in the Party!

Actions still speak louder than words!

[liberation]

230. Center-right people with delusions of liberalism are funny that way...

LOL

So what have you done exactly? (it is a rhetorical question, I really don't give two craps about what you have "done" since this is the interwebs and everyone can make up whatever crap they want, esp. when it comes to imposing arbitrary standards on others so I am sure you would be especially creative).

[emulatorloo]

197. Sure , of course there is room in the Democratic Party to advocate those things n/t

[makemyday]

199. These are Democratic Values! Are those we elected not pushing for them?

Amen! The writer hits it on the head as far as government is concerned. However, as individuals are concerned there is need:

Life is short. Live it while you can. When it's over, it's over.

Living life is making choices.

To be truly free one needs:
1. Freedom from Religious Intrusion and/or Intervention.
2. Freedom from Government Intrusion and/or Intervention.
3. Freedom from Medical Intrusion and/or Intervention.
4. Freedom from Social Intrusion and/or Intervention.

While the Democratic government cannot guarantee individual freedom, elected officials who, to the best of their Ability, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" can make a significant contribution toward achieving this goal.

[davidwparker]

209. K&R

[chill_wind]

215. K & R.

[bkozumplik]

218. refreshing list

These are all do-able if the country had the political will and the mindset to do it. We have been a corporatist society for so long.

thanks for putting the list together.

fanned.

[Myrina]

222. AYE!

That's the party I signed up for, so many years ago.

[tclambert]

226. I think I agree with everything on your list, except the word "immediate."

An orderly transition with a set deadline is okay by me.

[Capn Sunshine]

232. I can't believe this is for real

it's almost like people are trying hard, really hard, to stir up shit.

the OP-Those are pretty much core beliefs of the party. Who exactly, public figure Democrat, is against these? In anyones opinion?


To imply that otherwise is just stupid.

[ozone_man]

240. That's the point Cap'n.

These are supposed to be Democratic Party principles. But are they anymore?

[Capn Sunshine]

270. They sure as hell are

Despite what many on this board say, because some troublemaking asshole misconstrued some comment from someone somewhere , these are core values of the party.

If you're near LA April 16-18, you can come see the Democratic Party of California and ask the party officials for yourself. PM me for my cell number, and I'll meet any DUer in the lobby and show them where to go for access.

I'm really sick of seeing this bullshit on DU.

[donco6]

280. So you're saying Dems ARE advocating for these principles?

Are they doing it under a barrel? Because I sure haven't been seeing it.

[Capn Sunshine]

283. well if you don't want to see it , you won't

if you spend your time exclusively online picking articles and posts that fit with that general outlook, and don't participate in or with the actual party organization, it would be easy to get that idea. If I believed half the bullshit posted here at DU I'd be ready to kill myself.

[donco6]

295. Well, no.

I've seen a few Dems advocate for some things:

*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.

*Women's Right to Choose

*An END to "Corporate Personhood"



But what Dem is advocating:

*Medicare for anyone who wants it.

*Immediate withdrawal of ALL military forces and "contractors" from the Middle East.

*Immediate reduction of Military Spending by at least 50%

*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything "Too Big to Fail".

*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.

*An end to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom)

*EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act)

*An end to the two-tiered Judicial System

*Prosecution of rich American War Criminals and War Profiteers. (Oh yes they did!)

*Strictly Enforced Publicly Financed Elections (severe penalties for criminals)

*Transparent and Verifiable elections (Why isn't this a front burner issue with the Democratic Party?)

*Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities.

*NO Public Money for private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies, Private/Charter Schools, or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

*Immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL. (No Exceptions)

*Free Quality Universal Education to everyone who wants it.

*Strong Social Safety Net and Consumer Protections.

*An end to The Patriot Act and a return to The Constitution.(especially Habeas and privacy protections)

*A refutation of the "Unitary Executive", and legislation to ensure it NEVER happens again.

*An END to Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE The Democratic Party !
(NO! They DON"T deserve a seat at the table!)

[Lasher]

234. I sure hope so. I agree with every single goal you listed.

You rule.

[Jamastiene]

235. There is an UNLIMITED amount of room here under the bus.

Just ask gays, women, teachers, unions, nature, workers, the poor, and numerous other groups of people. We're all under the Democratic Party bus kicking our heels making the damn thing run. What those riding up top don't realize is that if they ever piss us off enough, they'll end up out of gas, hot and sweaty, and trapped in gridlock on the expressway.

There is plenty of room here under the bus and you'll be in good company. It's hard work to exist here though. Just keep that in mind. So, either you march in lockstep with yesterday's recycled insane Republican policies or COME ON DOWN. We'll save some leftovers for you if you are too late for dinner.

We've got all the best people down here anyhow. It's the only way to be once you've taken a ride on the wild side.

[jotsy]

238. Those are the things that make freedom ring!

Oh yeah.

[mvd]

242. Love your list

More progressive challenges like in Arkansas are good ways to get them. I believe Obama would sign many of these if given a chance, but the Democratic Party won't stand up for them. Instead of acting like the left is in a different Party, our leaders should recognize these as the common sense ideas they are.

[ArcticFox]

246. No.

[TheKentuckian]

247. Only if you advocate very meekly, don't ask NO QUESTIONS, and

less expectations.

[IndianaGreen]

249. The Democratic Party embraced segregation, Palmer raids, wars, and NAFTA

The Democratic Party also embraced integration, women's rights, peace, labour rights, and LGBT rights.

The party of Lester Maddox and Bull Connor is also the party of Jimmy Carter and Mario Cuomo.

The party of Strom Thurmond is also the party of LBJ and JFK.

It is the nature of the Democratic Party to suffer from multiple personalities.

It takes some taking use to!

[dflprincess]

250. Given it's current lack of committment to peace, labor, women's and GLBT rights

I'd say it's backsliding.

[Name removed]

255. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[branders seine]

262. you're obviously a naderite commie teabagger fucking retard,

and you should be alerted on (just as soon as the DLC moderator shift starts) and tombstoned.

[Moochy]

272. I second that motion and raise you a

MODERATOR HOT TUB TIME MACHINE

[Toucano]

264. I scored 100%

Can I have a gold star?

[earth mom]

276. Sorry I'm too late to rec this thread! This is my kind of DU thread!

[Lorien]

288. +1 nt

[bobbolink]

301. I would appreciate it if you would include HOMELESSNESS.

We feel so hopeless when we are soooo invisible.

[lib2DaBone]

304. No room for common sense, If you say you are a Democrat....

..you Will be accused of being a "Socialist". (Thank you Rush Limbaugh Talking Points)

However, our own Democratic party.. has done nothing to represent the members.

There is no room in the party if you let DLC run the show... We are not Israel ...and what is good for Israel.... is not necessarily good for America...

For instance.. Israel wants the US to attack Iran... I don't think that is such a great idea....