The ban on discrimination against the unemployed is a good start, and...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

here's how the Dems ought to handle it.

First of all, publicize the hell out of this move. If any American has not heard of it, it should be because they don't own a TV or radio. If the Republicans start a fake "hurt feelings" campaign (something they're really, really good at) ask them point blank how they would feel if they were 50 years old and hadn't worked for two years and desperately wanted to work but couldn't even get an interview BECAUSE they'd been unemployed.

Second, take the Congressional Progressive Caucus's Rebuild the American Dream Framework as a STARTING POINT for negotiations.

Yes, I know it wouldn't pass as is. But it should be a starting point (Principle #1 of negotiations: Always start with more than you can reasonably expect) and one that is highly publicized. Again, Dems should go on TV and the radio, both national and local stations, and publicize the main points of this framework in easily understood language. (The summary for public consumption should fit on a postcard.)

Then fight. Dig in your heels. Make the Republicans exhaust themselves fighting for each concession. While doing so, Dem spokespersons should go to all the media and say, "We're trying to eliminate tax breaks for companies that send jobs to cheap labor countries, and the Republicans are fighting for the fat cats" or something on that order. Then they should turn to the camera or microphone and urge people who agree to contact their Congresscritters.

If the Dems aren't willing to fight for ordinary Americans, then they shouldn't be surprised if ordinary Americans (not the most politically informed people in the world) don't fight for them.

[iconocrastic]

1. Why discriminate against people who recently lost their job?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. Uh, as far as I know, nobody is

It's the long-term unemployed who are facing discrimination.

[iconocrastic]

3. Uh, if you favor one class you discriminate against another.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Where did you get the right-wing talking point that says

that protecting a class (call it "A") against discrimination is the same as discrimination against "not A"?

Are you one of those people who thinks that white affluent males are the most persecuted people in America?

If you want to criticize my suggestions, talk about the substance of the proposal instead of channeling Fox News.

[Llewlladdwr]

5. Umm, it's common sense.

There are only so many jobs available. Giving one person preference, for whatever reason, means that someone else will be denied for reasons other than qualifications.

I will be losing my current job at the end of this year. I think I deserve just as much consideration when that happens as anyone else looking for work.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. And if you stay unemployed for a long time (hey, it could happen),

you won't be faced with job ads that say, "Only currently employed need apply."

[Lord Helmet]

6. never got this particular discrimination to begin with

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. How Do You Prove It Or Any Other Kind Of Discrimination?

These cases are extremely difficult.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Now will somebody please discuss my tactical suggestions instead of

using right-wing talking points as diversions?