The Democratic Party has been infiltrated.

[woo me with science]

by "Third Way" Democrats who do not share the same values and goals we do.

Let's be clear about that. This is not about aiming for the same goals, but at a slower pace. The "Third Way" has the very same corporate backing and many of the very same goals as the Republican Party, including reduction of entitlement benefits while protecting the interests of the wealthy, and extending the wars. The bankers and corporations have infiltrated our media, the elections process, and our educational system. Now they have come after our Democratic Party.

Did you ever think we would be seeing DEMOCRATS defending the kind of crap that is being defended now?

Let's be honest. The sooner we recognize this infiltration and name it, the sooner we can reclaim our party.

[Renew Deal]

1. I disagree

I don't think there's any change in the constitution of the party. I think the problem is Obama actually bothered to listen to the republicans.

[democracy1st]

66. do you think he's a conservative?

[Renew Deal]

72. No

[fadedrose]

262. Me neither...

Why would they be tryng so damned hard to get rid of him if he were doing their bid? I think they mistake courtesy for weakness.

They block his every attempt to make the economy better - they'll take down the nation just to see him squirm and not run again.

I like him, always did and always will. Let's not blame the victim and then say he's one of them...makes no sense at all.

[Armstead]

78. Yes....A moderate one but a conservative for sure

He thinks liberalism is one of those "tired ideologies" that we have to "move beyond."

And all evidence so far is that he believes "beyond" is in the direction of Republican Conservatism.

[Goldstein1984]

129. Yes, and I believe...

while the Democratic Party has probably been "infiltrated" by those who hold conservative views, I still believe the party itself has shifted to the Right, independent of ideological dilution. Militarism and support of "free markets" where not really exist are just two examples. Real liberals, such as Chomsky, who refuse to sell out for seats at the power table, are exiled and invalidated by the mainstream.

You've heard the saying, "I didn't cross the border, the border crossed me." Well, this is a case of, "I didn't abandon the party, the party abandoned me."

But there's a threshold of suffering that we'll soon cross, when people who believe they have nothing to gain will wake up and find themselves people with nothing to lose, and there will then be a let-them-eat-cake moment, and things will change catastrophically. I both dread and eagerly await that day.

[rhett o rick]

161. Well said. nm

[SusanaMontana41]

165. Excellent observation. n/t

[Mosaic]

238. The "mainstream"

The system, and greed, are all synonymous. We must change this for true liberals to have permanent seats at the proverbial table.

[Goldstein1984]

248. Absolutely, but...

I believe the change is going to be less a choice than a consequence of reaching critical limits, both in human nature and Nature in general.

The proliferation and domination of capitalism and a growth- and consumption-based system, based on the dual myths of unlimited growth and the potential of human creativity, not to mention the myth of "Man's" place above the rest of Nature, will be our undoing.

We're basically like a culture of bacteria overgrowing a petri dish, consuming all the resources, dispacing other organisms, and producing toxins that will destroy us.

[inna]

224. not so "moderate", by far. nt

[defendandprotect]

127. You're saying 20 years of Koch Bros. infiltration of the party had no effect on it---????

[MannyGoldstein]

167. Obama demanded cuts in Social Security - Republicans did not ask for them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1631283">Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

This strongly supports the OP.

[bjobotts]

170. No he did not.His approach did not affect recipients and he demanded nothing but discussion

[bjobotts]

171. See what is really happening to our democracy please go to alecexposed.org. see what it is

[woo me with science]

184. Nonsense. That is absolutely untrue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

[JDPriestly]

204. Obama put Social Security and Medicare on the table.

No point in denying it. He did not stand up for what is right. He was at best weak, at worst, well planning it all along.

[defendandprotect]

217. Yes -- Obama put Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid "on the table" ... !!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1631283&mesg_id=1631283

[Honeycombe8]

177. I don't think that's accurate. If he had, they would be in the Satan deal.

I think he offered something in his negotiations with Boehner, who also offered something. But I doubt he "demanded cuts" to Social Security. For one thing, it's not his style. Have you ever seen him "demand" anything?

They were both offering up things. That's what negotiation is. So O was able to say he offered this or that, but the other side didn't offer as much, so negotiations fell through.

But yes, I think he offered something. Because Obama has ALWAYS, from the beginning, said that something needs to be done about Social Security, before it becomes a problem. I think it'll start having funding problems in about 10 years, so the problem needs to be addressed before then.

But it has nothing to do with the deficit, so I was pretty upset he was "offering up" some concession in Social Sec. as part of a debt deal. Unless that was his strategy...that he was wanting to do that, anyway, so he offered it up in debt negotiations, thinking he wasn't really giving anything, since he wanted to do that, anyway.

Or something like that.

[woo me with science]

185. He didn't just offer "something." He offered 650 BILLION in cuts

to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He offered them repeatedly.

And these proposed cuts absolutely remain on the table as part of this deal. The Third Way has already rushed out to publicly proclaim that the Super Congress must make cuts in Medicare and Social Security. If you need a link, please refer to the thread below; I get tired of repeating myself and copying links.

President Obama favors reform of entitlements, including benefit cuts. He has repeatedly defended them, and they very much remain on the table in this deal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

[Honeycombe8]

195. I respect Krugman, but I find no facts to support $650B in cuts to the 3 programs.

Not one fact. I read through, in the link within the link within the link, the list of supposed Obama "offers" in negotiations (given by an unnamed "senior administration official" yeah, right - I'm thinking a Republican was the source). Nowhere does it state that O offered $650 in cuts to the 3 programs.

If the link within the link within the link is true (if), then he DID offer up a lot. Which is what I said, I believe.

But it doesn't need to be exaggerated to make it worse. It's bad enough as it is.

As for Social Security, it WILL have to be fixed. It WILL run out of funding. We have all known this for at least 20 years (or more). It's because of the baby boomers being so many more than the younger people who are working (current beneficiaries' benefits are being paid by current workers - as the # of beneficiaries increases, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries decreases, creating a shortfall of funds to pay benefits). So, yeah, something will have to be done. If not now, then next year or the next year. It will happen. It's just plain math. When the program was started, it wasn't intended for disability...but it was then expanded to include that. That had a big impact, no doubt. Then people started living a reeeeeally long time, compared to when the program was started. And they had a much longer retirement span. Used to be, people didn't live much longer than their retirement age.

Medicare is something else. Companies don't want to keep workers who are old. Most will be laid off, if they don't voluntarily retire. Then if they don't have Medicare, they'll have to buy private insurance. Millions will not be able to afford that.

I want to see Democrats who will protect all three programs (although I think that SS does in fact need something done, to keep it solvent. But that doesn't have to be done right away.)

[JDPriestly]

205. The Social Security Trust Fund has plenty of money to

fund the Social Security for the baby boomers.

That is because the FICA tax was raised during the Reagan administration to prepare for the expected baby boomer retirements.

Problem is that the government borrowed that money to fund wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.

And there would still be no problem except that now that the baby boomers are starting to retire, the government does not want to pay back the money it borrowed from the trust fund for the baby boomers.

[defendandprotect]

218. SOCIAL SECURITY $2.7 TRILLION TRUST FUND -- Plus still runs surplus ... !!

[MannyGoldstein]

235. Obama said it himself. Here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

And Social Security is not running out of funding: http://www.handsoffss.org/will-social-security-go-bankrupt-in-the-future.html
Everything that's happening now is as planned for many years ago: http://www.handsoffss.org/when-the-baby-boomers-retire-will-too-few-people-be-paying-into-social-security.html

[frylock]

246. *crickets*

the level of denial on display here is really something to behold.

[kenfrequed]

240. Social Security is Solvent

It is solvent for decades to come. The difficulty is that money was borrowed to pay for tax cuts and war and now that the bill is due the conservatives don't wanna pay what was taken out. If they can cut the programs they don't have to pay abck as much or as quickly.

[defendandprotect]

216. Obama -- not GOP -- put Social Security and Medicare on the table -- see Conyers comments ... !!

Look for the Rep. John Conyers' thread from yesterday --

Here ya go --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1631283&mesg_id=1631283

[No Elephants]

255. Untrue. He did not, from the beginning, recommend cuts to OASDI. He said the cap

had to be raised.

Of course, that was Candidate Obama. President Elect Obama, however, started talking publicly about cuts before his inauguration.

[PassingFair]

196. Bruce Reed was in almost every frame of the "behind the scenes"...

pictures of the "debt crisis".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/behind-the-scenes-at-the-white-house-debt-talks/2011/08/03/gIQAoTOlsI_gallery.html#photo=1




Fucking Bruce fucking Reed, right in the fucking thick of things,
fucking us over. Biden's COS...

:rofl:

:puke:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/14/936340/-Biden-Picks-Bruce-Reed-%28DLC-CEO-Catfood-Commissioner%29

[No Elephants]

258. Is Geithner explaining what he will be offering up to the Rethug Gods?

[Kolesar]

2. some "specifics" would be nice, mm-kay?

[woo me with science]

15. Been asleep for two and a half years? nt

[Kolesar]

44. very impressive

Mr. Chair-occupant

[woo me with science]

86. Third Way attempts to deflect from discussion of policy

to the letter behind someone's name do not impress me. The letter after someone's name is irrelevant, if the politician himself pursues the policies of banks, corporations, and the obscenely wealthy.

[Kolesar]

92. No specifics there, either! eom

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

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

[kenfrequed]

241. Well how about

Health care where the conserva-dems knocked single payer right off the table. Which many progressives thought meant that we would get a public option instead. Wrong! Knocked off the table. Public option with strings? No. Public option experiment with delayed start up? No.

Or how about the discussion about the debt? How invested were the third way democrats in increasing taxes or dropping the Bush tax cuts? Back in 2008 we could have done away with them but didn't. Instead more tax cuts. It was like having republcians in office. Stimulus? Still more tax cuts (which have already been proven to not work).

Both of these were rife with thrid way collaborators who embraced conservative ideas and really didn't want to push forward with even Democratic ideas, much less progressive ideas.

[woo me with science]

269. The thread is full of specifics, as is the rest of DU.

You merely have to read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1664531

(many others, too!)

[CleanGreenFuture]

87. How can you not see it? Have you been hiding under a rock?

Or are you not old enough to know what a traditional Democrat is?

[kristopher]

107. Obama's policies are straight from their think tank.

See for yourself.

http://www.thirdway.org/

[klook]

118. Holy shit.

That's a scary website.

Here's a link to an interesting article with more info about them and other astroturf organizations.

[fascisthunter]

166. their ideology leads to fascism

absolute

[bjobotts]

172. “[I]n 2 yrs Obama's done more to enact a liberal agenda than George Bush did a conservative agenda i

in 8yrs"-David Frum

[bjobotts]

173. Sure glad he saved millions of jobs by bailing out the auto industry.No more torture

[defendandprotect]

219. David Frum would certainly tell us the truth --

:rofl: --

That is Koch Bros. DLC David Frum you mean -- ?

[Kolesar]

233. Obama's polices are from his 2008 platform

Trying to tie them to that thirdway website is way too convoluted.

[vi5]

3. It IS aiming for the same goal at a different pace...

Our Democratic leaders (Obama included) are aiming for the same goals as the republicans. Less regulation of business, low taxes for the wealthy, the destruction of the social safety net, privatization of all education, privatization of as many industries as possible.

They are just doing it at a slower, piece by piece pace as opposed to the Republicans "all at once" strategy.

The worst part about it is, that is their selling point as to why people should vote for them. "We'll destroy the country slower than they will!!!"

Yeah. Sounds great. No thanks.

[Armstead]

51. Not sure it is at a slower pace anymore -- That Debt Bill pushed it ahead pretty good

[DURHAM D]

4. What is it with you and the Third Way?

[tridim]

9. Woo is trying to scare Democrats into not voting for Democrats.

[woo me with science]

13. No, you are trying to scare people into voting for Republicans in Democrat suits. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Do you consider President Obama to be a "Republican in Democrat suit?"

[woo me with science]

19. When did defending the cutting of Medicare and SS benefits become a Democratic position? nt

[tridim]

20. The opposite of that statement is true.

Show me ONE statement by the president supporting medicare and SS cuts to BENEFITS.

Woo me with bullshit.

[woo me with science]

37. Be careful what you ask for. Here's your reality sandwich:

Of course he has defended benefit cuts. Repeatedly.


1. He supported them in the first press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

"And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on."



2. He supported them in the second press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/15/press-conference-president

"well, let me put it this way: If you’re a senior citizen, and a modification potentially costs you a hundred or two hundred bucks a year more, or even if it’s not affecting current beneficiaries, somebody who’s 40 today 20 years from now is going to end up having to pay a little bit more....The least I can do is to say that people who are making a million dollars or more have to do something as well."


3. He put 650 billion in cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on the table and then publicly bemoaned the fact that the Republicans did not accept his "big deal." And we learned afterward that the "big deal" absolutely DID include benefit cuts. By reports from multiple sources (including Nancy Pelosi, btw), the deal, which was agreed upon except for the revenue component, included the following:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/what-obama-was-willing-to-give-away/?utm_source=Blog&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92539/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-press-conference-concessions-revenue


"Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny."


4. Then the Republicans moved further right, and the President *still* begged for a compromise. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/address-president-nation)

"...serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress."

Let me repeat: the President offered up all of these entitlement benefit cuts, and even as the Republicans moved rightward, he continued to plead for a "compromise." Not only that, but he insisted that serious debt reduction must include "entitlement reform."

NEVER, throughout the process, did he ever say that benefits cuts were off the table. And they still are not. The Super Congress will certainly consider SS and Medicare benefit cuts.

5. In fact, the Third Way has already come out of the gate with a statement saying that the Super Congress MUST cut SS and Medicare, and there is no indication whatsoever that they would leave benefits out of the equation. The DETAILS of the plans that have already been on the table make clear that benefit cuts are the first options they are likely to consider:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1638366&mesg_id=1638366

"Republicans must be willing to throw out their pledges and support an increase in revenues; Democrats must tell their core supporters that the only way to save entitlements like Medicare and Social Security is to reform them. Both options must be on the table immediately, and neither side should view their absence in the current deal as an opportunity to declare them off-limits."


6. Add to this the President's longstanding history of PLANNING significant entitlement reform and aligning himself with other Hamiltonian Democrats who have been very clear about wanting to slash the benefits system:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1540315


7. And his promise to reform entitlements soon after he was elected President:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html


8. Only the willfully blind would insist at this point, with the history I have detailed here, that the Super Committee will not seek to include benefit cuts in its agenda, and that President Obama would not support such a goal. In fact, Kucinich is on record chastising the President for not being more forthright with the public about his planned cuts to Social Security (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/the-white-house-now-conce_b_910156.html). Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are certainly also still on the table, as well.




If, after all of this, you continue to claim that Obama does not support benefit cuts, you are creating your own reality.

Tridim, you insult people who have actually been paying attention when you tell them the opposite of what they have observed with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. People dislike being played for chumps, and that is how this administration is making them feel right now. It is one thing to assault people's livelihoods and piss on their futures. It is even worse to tell them you are their protector while you are doing it.

[tridim]

45. First quote is not referring to SS and Medicare benefits

He is using "benefits" as a generic term. You read the text, you should know that. Just because the President says a word in an extended answer to a complicated question, doesn't mean he is for gutting SS and Medicare.

In context:

---

So the argument I’m making to my party is, the values we care about -- making sure that everybody in this country has a shot at the American Dream and everybody is out there with the opportunity to succeed if they work hard and live a responsible life, and that government has a role to play in providing some of that opportunity through things like student loans and making sure that our roads and highways and airports are functioning, and making sure that we’re investing in research and development for the high-tech jobs of the future -- if you care about those things, then you’ve got to be interested in figuring out how do we pay for that in a responsible way.

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

---

Reading comprehension is fun. Second quote is about means testing and making sure the system is fair so people who need the benefits of SS and Medicare will continue to get them. I have to assume the rest of your "evidence" is equally BS.

[Armstead]

52. Yes -- Maybe it's just food stamps, or training money

One of those unimportant little "entitlements" that nobody cares about. Only those poor people are affected.

[tridim]

55. Obama didn't and won't cut food stamps, your post is pure FUD.

Stop it.

[sabrina 1]

73. Why does SS need reform?? Considering it's the most

solvent and most successful fiscal program ever with its obligations covered until 2075 without doing anything to it right now?

'Reform'. He had avoided using that word, using more blurry words like 'tweak' for a while.

The Third Way wants to 'reform' SS. He is clearly on board with their failed, stupid policies and the state the country is in since these morons began infiltrating the party that normally would have been FIGHTING these policies, proves what a failure it has been.

I'm glad people, including me, have been learning about this infiltration. It makes it easier to understand why we were often confused by the actions of 'Democrats' and what we have to do to clean out the party of their influence. A Big Tent didn't mean 'moderate Republicans'. They have their own party which badly needs saving.

[JDPriestly]

207. Because Wall Street wants more money to steal.

[Shining Jack]

212. +1

As much as 99% of the time I agree with you. And I'm a bit surprised because I can't say the same for most people. :hi:

[sabrina 1]

225. Thank you!

:-)

[Armstead]

90. You sure about that? Look at the size of what is going to be cut in...

discretionary spending and all of the programs that are included in that.

But people are going to have to "eat their peas" except they may not have access to any as a result of these policies.

[tridim]

93. Yes, I'm sure. I'll bet my EBT card on it.

The Republicans and the teafuckers might try, but Obama will veto it.

[Armstead]

94. If you do have one of those cards, I hope your faith in Obama holds true

But based on experience, I'm not all that confident this will be off the table...And if not cuts, very much tightened eligibility or services in many of these programs.

[tridim]

96. Why do you think he wants that?

He has never said anything even close to what you predict.

What experience are you invoking? SS and Medicare, which both remain intact as promised?

[Armstead]

109. His very basic premise supports that

He is supporting the right-wing meme that in economic trimes like this, the most serious problem we have to solve is the long-range deficit. And that means cutbacks in all government programs and initiatives (except war).

He has said as much by "we'll all have to tighten our belts." That doesn't mean people who rely on things like food assistance are exempted.

The correct response would be: "yes we have to deal with the long range deficits -- but our first priority is to get the economy moving and also to maintain the safety net for those who are being negatively impacted. We'll deal with the deficit after that."

As I said above, I hope your faith is justified. However, I am skeptical.

[Muskypundit]

123. Holy crap.

Obama, the president you are trying to defend, put cuts to SS and Medicare on the table. The only reason they didnt get cut was because republicans wanted their personal tax breaks more than they wanted kill poor people. This time. Not because Obama defended it. He fucking gave it away. End of the story. He proved his willingness to cut entitlements a mile for an inch from republicans. You can thank the tea party for entitlements not being cut for now, funny enough. Not Obama. He showed his true colors. He put the gun to your head and pulled the trigger. Just because he forgot to load it doesnt mean anything. HE STILL TRIED TO SHOOT YOU.

[defendandprotect]

134. +1000% -- Thank you --

I'm amazed to see even any attempt here to alibi for Obama --

especially that he's already cut two years of COLA payments and probably

2012 as well!!

Very destructive for seniors!!

Great post -- !!

:hi:

[nashville_brook]

138. Obama sought $650 BILLION in cuts to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, to be precise.

[DirkGently]

140. Well said.

[EFerrari]

154. +1000

[Raksha]

260. +1000

[Angry Dragon]

221. LOL

[Jakes Progress]

200. Oh. look shiny.

Blind faith is comforting. But it is still blind.

[Mimosa]

59. Peeking at a typical 'conservative' board, I read poor people are 'lazy'

And rich people aren't born rich. They get rich soley by their unrelenting hard work. *rolling eyes*

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sulphurdunn]

110. Who created

the Simpson Bowles Commission? When in the hell has the President not proffered cuts to Social Security and Medicare? What planet do you live on? We don't need to cut entitlements. We need to raise revenues, cut military spending and create jobs. You can pretty much bet your ass that the last two won't happen and that the first is on the deficit chopping block.

[defendandprotect]

220. +1 -- this new "deal" by Obama is going to worsen what already is a near-depression....

if not a depression!!



:hi:

[defendandprotect]

131. The mask is off --- it's over --

[lonestarlib]

83. One only has to read some of Third Way's own publications

to realize what's going on.

Check out who donates to your reps & senators.

There's some information in this recent Naked Capitalism post http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/third-way-document-proves-democratic-party-supports-institutionalized-looting-by-banks.html. There's lots more out there if one bothers to look.

My husband, also a liberal, is registered as an independent because he recognized what was happening a long time ago.

[woo me with science]

89. Yep. Follow the money.

The corporatists buy into both parties, and they stoke the animosity between the parties deliberately. Third Way "Democrats" hope that Democratic voters will adopt a "team mentality" and not notice that their own party is essentially working for the same goals as the Republicans.

That is why the Third Way appeals you see are inevitably calls for loyalty to the Democratic label, rather than discussion of Democratic values and principles.

Robert Reich captured the strategy very well in his short video on the economy, when he drew a Republican and a Democrat screaming at each other, while a rich man picks BOTH of their pockets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE

Taking the party back has to focus on clearly identifying for people the REAL problem, which is bank and corporate influence. You have to educate people to look at policies, rather than trusting that a (D) after a politician's name means what they want to assume it means.

[defendandprotect]

222. Thank you for the info --

didn't get to check the money yet, but saved the website to check soon --

Frightening!



:hi:

[defendandprotect]

132. Obama already knocked out COLA payments -- two years now ... and probably 2012 as well-- !!!

That will begin to have a HUGE impact on seniors --

!!!

[woo me with science]

157. You are absolutely right. It isn't just starting.

It is already well in progress.

[defendandprotect]

210. Good thread, woo -- needed to be done -- !!

:)

[chill_wind]

201. That post should be in everyone's bookmarks.

:thumbsup:

[Kaleko]

209. Good job, woo. Really well done. n/t

[sabrina 1]

64. He said it at the G20 Conference last year.

He adheres to the Global Captitalist, 'Third Way' policies of diminishing social programs, as is happening in Europe. 'Austerity' 'Share the Sacrifice'. They all have the same lingo, and they are bringing it here now, after failing in South America and Europe and wherever else they've gone with this 'third way' garbage. They are Globalists, they blur national and party lines. That's why it has been confusing for people when they hear talk about SS tied to The Deficit, instead of hearing clear statements that SS had nothing to do with creating the deficit, among other things.

Once you learn about these policies, it makes it easier to understand. Obama is surrounded by Third Wayers.

[woo me with science]

91. Great post. Thank you. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

126. Forget the 'statements' - look at what he DOES.

And, BTW, just how do you make cuts to Medicare suppliers without it 'trickling down' to the Medicare beneficiary?

ANY cut to suppliers will result in more doctors and institutions refusing Medicare patients. How is that not a cut to benefits?

[Chan790]

139. Almost any cut is at-best an indirect cut to benefits...

who do you think picks up the slack? Providers don't eat the loss, they pass it on to patients or they stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. Changing how the formulas work is an invisible cut to benefits, nobody's holding the knife but there's blood on the floor...so too for "reform" or changing eligibility-rules.

There is no such thing as a cut that doesn't degrade service or reduce benefits unless it's an individual-level targeted cut to reduce corruption or bureaucratic waste. Those are not in this discussion.

[bjobotts]

176. You need to look at the details of his "proposal" for "discussion".Recipients were not affected on t

their end...it was the waste and abuse and a smarter way. So quick to condemn Obama

[bjobotts]

178. Waste and abuse and a smarter way to make it more efficient.So quick to condemn Obama.

[bjobotts]

179. The GOP's one main goal is make Obama a one term president and blind you

[bjobotts]

182. Blind you to all his accomplishments...in just 2yrs.Bet you can't remember any of them.

[woo me with science]

188. Nonsense.

Simply repeating something false does not make it true. He absolutely defended and offered benefit cuts, as the record clearly shows:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

[frylock]

249. the mythical waste, fraud and abuse that they've been chasing for decades now

[woo me with science]

187. This is absolutely false.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1660734&mesg_id=1661130

[bertman]

106. I certainly do, Mr. Stubbs. I didn't three years ago when I was working my ass off for him,

when I was giving him my hard-earned cash, when I was doing my damndest to convince my conservative relatives to vote for him.

Now, the proof is in the pudding, Mr. Stubbs and the pudding tastes like Republican Rhubarb Pie to me.

Having been a loyal Democrat for 40 years, I am APPALLED that President Obama can still call himself a Democrat. He is a DLC, Corporatist.

Same same Republican. Just not quite as far to the right.

[tridim]

18. Me? Not even fucking close. I'm 100% pure Democrat.

I'm trying to get Democrats to support and vote for Democrats. I never suggest voting for DINOs, like Holy Joe and Nelson.

[Armstead]

54. Two Words -- Financial Deregulation

Remember those pesky things that were pushed down our throats in the late 1990's by the DLC Democrats? Brought us great things like Too Big To Fail monopoly banks, financial sca,s and the other great things that helped cause the Crash of 2008?

And the same kind of junk is being done now. recent "Financial regulation" Leaves most of the core problems intact, while gilding the lily.

[BNJMN]

67. Only a 100%?

traitor.

[makeMOblue]

192. 100% pure democrats need to be in charge of the party

getting a seat at the table at the county level is easy. Just do it. any of you who think there are too many DINOs or third wayers or conservative democrats should not just be working your asses off for those amazing candidates that get you you fired up. you should be the bottom rung of the party machine. You should be developing the farm team. How do you think these people got into the bigger offices?

[RaleighNCDUer]

124. Trying to warn people to not vote for Third Wayers who just call themselves Democrats

while their untimate agenda is fundamentally anti-Democratic.

[Odin2005]

25. The Third Way are NOT Democrats. They are Repukes pretending to be Dems.

Does that not concern you?

[Mimosa]

63. Definitely!

Third way dems are much like Clinton in the US and Tony Blair in the UK, only more conservative fiscally, if possible.

What happened is when the religious nuts more or less took over the Republican Party in the late 1980s, some Republicans couldn't identify with the fundies. They had little in common with them. The moderate republicans tended to be pro-choice and somewhat socially 'liberal'. But they are very Milton Friedman and Chicago school as far as economics go. They are also hawkish, anti-union. They have become Democrats. Their money is welcome. They have dragged the democratic party rightward.

[bjobotts]

183. Please go to alecexposed.org to see what is really happening.We are getting sidetracked on purpose

[CleanGreenFuture]

88. +1000

[Faygo Kid]

144. +2,000

[fascisthunter]

150. !

:kick:

[Hissyspit]

100. Turd Way sucks?

There is no need for a "Third Way?"

Was a time Third Way and DLC people had no credibility at all on this board at all and there is no particular reason why they should have today?

NPR and other media sticks a Republican critic on and then has one of these boobs on as the "other side of the argument?" representing the Left?

Maybe some of those things?

[defendandprotect]

128. No -- what's with Dem candidates and the third way ... ? And Koch Bros DLC?

[polichick]

5. I agree - and the infiltration has gone on for quite some time...

Principled Dems either have to take back the party - or get on with creating a new one.

Yes, and the sooner people get what's happened, the sooner we can do something about it.

[ProSense]

6. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were DLC

So was Hillary Clinton.

This realization is about three decades late.

[City Lights]

8. Better late than never. eom

[global1]

14. Will Someone Explain To Me What The DLC Is And Why It Is Bad?........

Is its counterpart the DNC? What are the differences between the two?

[robdogbucky]

26. Well, for starters, the Koch Bros. started the DLC, does that help? n/t

[chill_wind]

33. And Bradley Foundation $$$-- to Third Way. Isn't that nice?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1442301&mesg_id=1448621

[chill_wind]

27. Third Way/PPI/New Democrat

takes up where the DLC left off. And then some.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1442301&mesg_id=1442301

[Odin2005]

28. DLC = Democratic Leadership Council = Pro-Corporate Dems.

They took over the party in 1994 after the election massacre that year.

[BNJMN]

71. Is Debbie Schultz part of the DLC?

I was alarmed to hear how she was appointed head of the DNC, which, apparently controls which Democrats get funds for their elections.

Essentially determining what choices we have to choose from to begin with!

But, I could be mistaken.
I don't have much time to sleuth around
in the political waste bin anymore.
:D

[Odin2005]

84. I believe she is DLC.

[bananas]

29. Read this

(on edit: added an excerpt, but go read the whole post, and follow the links to sourcewatch etc)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2445516

Third Way Foundation > Progressive Policy Institute > DLC - FUNDING 101

<snip>

"'The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation, however, is to return the U.S. -- and the world -- to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off.'"

<snip>

[Armstead]

60. Basic Answer. It is a subgroup of Democrats. Not the DNC

Democratic Leadership Council was an organization by basically conservative Democrats (led by Bill Clinton) to push policies that were neither liberal or conservative (they claim) but a "third way.

But many believe it is more aligned with the agenda of corporations and conservatives, thus diluting the Democratic Party as a true liberal alternatibve to the GOP.

[Armstead]

56. Yeah so that's a good reason to do nothing now. Great logic

[ProSense]

68. No

"Yeah so that's a good reason to do nothing now. "

...that's your logic.

I said nothing so irrational!

I voted against the DLC in the 2008 primary!

[Armstead]

80. So why is trying to denigrate consersation about this not the same as ...

saying "Just ignore what is happening because it's old news."

[Shining Jack]

213. Er, you forgot the blue links of death...

Or maybe I'm not talking to the right person?

[Shining Jack]

214. Speaking of infiltration...

[Mimosa]

70. Um, many of us knew that

Early stage DLC we knew were 'Southern strategy' type Dems. IIRC, Mary Landrieu and John Breaux were in the club as well.

Edited for spelling.

[Fuddnik]

99. One reason I refused to support Hillary Clinton.

And another reason I ALMOST voted for Nader.

[mmonk]

7. Solutions are only possible through recognition.

[Armstead]

62. Ha! Good luck with that one here.

With some people, Obama and the other conservative Democrats could eliminate the Department of Education, and they would be twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why that is a good thing.

[MissDeeds]

10. Agreed

K&R

[indepat]

11. Tis amazing what unlimited money and a 24-7 media blitz can

accomplish and how little of the former it takes to buy the soul and integrity of so many. :patriot:

[RC]

12. Third Way Democrats

What the "T" in T-bagger... er T-Party really stands for.

We can no longer differentiate between the good guys and bad guys with the letters between the parentheses after their names.
Not only do we have to contend with DINO's, but now we have TWD's (twids?) Whatever, in the ranks, posing as Democrats.

[Bandit]

17. This is Democrats "Southern Strategy"

Democrats came to the conclusion that the only way they can win is with money. Lots and lots of money, and the people just don't have it to give them. They now get the majority of their money (or assistance) from the very wealthy and Corporations just as the Republicans do..It has some logic considering half the population that is eligible to vote does not, and the majority of Americans just can't be bothered by "politics". Republicans created their own strategy under Nixon. "Southern Strategy" which basically was don't even bother with blacks, spend all resources using division instead of a unifying message.. It has worked splendidly for them and shows no signs of faltering.. Democrats have learned this lesson and so now we have little actual difference between the two Parties. Yes Democrats talk the talk but have completely stopped walking the walk..

[loyalsister]

82. Southern strategy courted racist voters

It was a bottom up strategy. Do what racist voters want, win, then join the majority.
Thus, Democrats like Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party.

How is that really analogous to corporations hedging their bets and donating to both parties who both need their $$ to win?

[jtown1123]

21. I agree wholeheartedly.

[polmaven]

22. Please define "we".

If a person does not feel the need to denigrate the president at every turn, would that make him/her a "Third Way" Democrat?

[woo me with science]

38. The argument here is a common tactic of Third Way Democrats.

Make it personal, and shift the debate from actual policies.

Defend the person with the (D) after the name. Never mind that that person is steadfastly backing what have historically been Republican policies.

[polmaven]

42. That is not an answer.

Please define "we".

[woo me with science]

47. It is absolutely an answer.

Since when did arguing for Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts become an acceptable position for a Democratic President?

And I already defined "we" in the OP. "We" are those who still stand for and advocate for traditional Democratic values and policies, such as defending Medicare and Social Security, ending rather than expanding the corporate war machine, and ensuring progressive taxation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

136. FDR Democrats. Good enough? Or do we need to define THAT for you? nt

[Mimosa]

57. Polmaven, it's not 'about the President'

Get that through your head, please. Nobody, especially we who worked our fingers to the bone and contributed all we could afford to elect Barack Obama, wanted his Presidency to be anything less than successful. We were inspired by him, we trusted him.WE are coping with more or less profound disappointments.

However, the status of working people and the desperation of those who can't find good paying jobs are more important to us than the popularity of the President.

[Armstead]

65. No it does not mean that. This is much more important than whether he is a good man

When he supports policies and a message that is contrary to what liberal Democrats believe, he should be called on it.

If "support for President Obama" means not criticizing him -- even when he pushes the party (and nation) in a more conservative direction -- then you either have to acknowledge that you are a conservative or else acknowledge that personality is more important than policies and political purposes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. No, agreeing with the Third Way New Democrat agenda, as the President does,

is what makes him a Third Wayer.

[dtexdem]

23. It's not the first time we have suffered betrayal.

In my lifetime, there was LBJ's betrayal of his own Democratic Great Society by ramping up the Vietnam War. And there were the continuing Dem pol betrayals re that war. That drove me out of the Party for many years. Now I'm seeing the same possible fate.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

30. BS

No Democrats stand for cutting benefits. And if they ever have to because Republicans are elected in great enough numbers, that does not show they want to do it.

Quit blaming Democrats for the wars - Republicans started them and they have to be would down responsibly.

[chill_wind]

41. No Democrats would take Koch Brothers and Bradley Foundation $$$

to create their own ideological movement within the party, either.

Or would they.

[RaleighNCDUer]

137. Horse puckey. The responsible way to get out of the wars

is to pack up and go home. Now.

Fewer of us will die. Fewer of them will die. Less money will be funneled to the MIC.

Obama EXPANDED the war into Pakistan and Yemen, and started an entirely NEW war in Libya. And NOBODY is talking about the ongoing 'drug war' in Colombia.

There is NO valid military reason for NOT just packing up and going home.

[Cal33]

31. I think you may have a good point there. The Neocons inflitrated the Republican Party some

4 or 5 decades ago, worked their way up the ranks, usurped the power of the Repub.
leaders, and threw them out. The old-timer former leaders have nothing more to say.
The Neocons were smart enough to keep the Reublican name. Millions of old-timer
Republicans don't even know that their Party no longer exists, and they still
think they are "voting Republican" come election time.

Maybe they are doing the same thing to the Dem. Party right now, and have been
doing so for some time.

[Armstead]

69. They have been doing the same thing for several decades

Free Trade (outsourcing of the US Economy), Media Consolidation, a financial sector owned by immoral "Too Big to Fail" banking monopolies, etc.....These are all brought to you by DLC Democrats as much -- if not more -- as the GOP.

In terms of actual policies and "messaging" the DLC/Centrist types only want the differences between two parties to be about "social issues" and slioght differences in image. Thew substance is the same when it comes to real issues of Wealth and Power.

[OHdem10]

32. Actually, Thirdway, DL C runs the party, therefore we are more

accurately described as Conservative Democratic Party.

[alsame]

34. Rahm and Bruce Reed as chiefs of staff POTUS/VPOTUS kind

of says it all, doesn't it?

[amborin]

98. yes, along w/ Summers and Geithner

[w4rma]

35. Every DLCer appointed, nominated or elected to a position is a future saboteur.

Purge them all.

[Fearless]

36. Democratic values?? That's SOOOO 1960's. n/t

[fascisthunter]

39. The Sooner we can all admit this, the Better!!!!

[L0oniX]

40. I voted for a Democrat and ended up with a repuke.

[Davis_X_Machina]

43. There is no "Democratic Party"....not in the sense you're using the term.

There are three parties, but only two labels.

Democrats who are Democrats,
Democrats who are Republicans.
Republicans who are Republicans.

(There used to be quite a few Republicans who are Democrats when I was a lad, but they're extinct.)

Welcome to the joys of coalition government.

Coalition government, or permanent minority. That's the menu.

[Marr]

46. Very true-- when they make reference to Dems voting for them because they 'have no other choice',

they're really saying a lot about their strategies and purpose. The "third way" approach is a means of limiting political discourse to two corporate parties, and shutting left wing voters out in the cold.

[Armstead]

74. There is an actual alternative to voting for Conservative Democrap

There is "another choice" even within the Democratic party.

That would be to realign the party more to truly liberal/progressive populist goals and messages.

It is a subject of debate whether that is possible given the backing of corporate power the Conservative Centrist Democrats enjoy, and the ability to obscure the issues through cleaver Rovelike propaganda.

But that is an actual alternative to the "vote for crap because you have no other choice" bnludgeon that is constantly used.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

75. I disagree partially

I don't believe an actual third party is feasible given our political structure and ingrained attitudes. (Possible in a parliamentary system where coalition governments and alliances are possible but not here).

However I do believe that a Progressive Pressure group is an alternative (kinda like a Tea Party of the left). That would include a "critical mass" of true liberals and progressives and related organizations that would amass enough political influence through popular support and money to put the pressure on the Democratic Party, and make them sweat about being able to hold on to the liberal "base."

[DirkGently]

130. Yep. Votes, not dollars, must count. A large enough group vowing non-support of corporatists.

[makeMOblue]

194. amen

the easiest way to fix the problem is to get on your local committees. with a critical mass of democrats that beleive in things like opportunity for all the political landscape can eventually be shifted back to where it belongs.

"tag, you're it"...who can guess the author?

[Armstead]

49. AMEN.....Many have been saying that for years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Though you are partially correct, parties change

these days this is bidness friendlies, center right party.

And the change started over thirty years ago.

It will take another generation to bring it back

[woo me with science]

61. I think we had better take a close look at the demographics of the "Third Way" Democrats,

because I worry that they are recruiting younger voters who do not have the generational memory to understand what we are losing here...

This post bothered me this morning, because I fear there is truth to it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1658936

[makeMOblue]

199. if you want a 10 year old tree...

....then the best time to plant it was 10 years ago, the second best time is right now. It might take a generation to get things back where they should be but we have to start at some point.

my local county committee is full of old biddies who think that just because they used to be able to win elections by throwing a BBQ every summer they can win one that way now. Other counties in my state suffer the same way. A DFA workshop weekend was full of progresives in the minority on thier committees fighting the same battles I was. We progressives were voted out in my county, and while I am bitter I have not given up. just changed tactics. A different county managed to get a majority and has a real grass roots liberal group. They are still in the electoral minority but gaining ground and getting stronger. their successes keep hope alive for me (love to Franklin Co, Mo).

It can be done but it will take years.

[Mimosa]

53. +1,000 K&Ring.

Woo Me with Science: "Did you ever think we would be seeing DEMOCRATS defending the kind of crap that is being defended now? "

NO!!! Not 3 years ago. Similar economic policies and foreign policy situations under Bush 43 were deemed intolerable. People were demanding serious change not incremental 'tweaking'. My, how things have changed. Meaning the more things 'changed' the more they remained the same. Only worse. :(

[Armstead]

77. Hell, I would have been satisfied with "tweaking" if it had been in the proper direction

What bugs me is that the "tweaking" has been in the opposite direction from what it should be.

[hulka38]

76. Not infiltrated. It's complete party capture.

That's the way I see it.

[Scurrilous]

79. I believe a purge is in order. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

147. If one doesn't believe in Medicare, SS, and taxing the rich, they're in the wrong party.

[hootinholler]

81. Basically, the DLC was replaced by the turd way

After they disbanded because they outlived their usefulness to the Koch bros.

Thanks for this post!

-Hoot

[cascadiance]

146. Here's my thoughts on the Turd Way!

[me b zola]

85. We can't beat the republicans

...until we get them out of our party. No matter how you slice & dice it, that's the simple truth.

[readmoreoften]

95. That's right. There are powerful, moneyed insiders ruining this Party.

And they are as much an enemy as the right wing.

[swilton]

97. I think there is as much chance to reclaim this party

as there is to build up a third party. In the case of the latter, I am being pro something and looking into the future not trying to drive a car by looking through a rear view mirror.

[russspeakeasy]

102. New boss, same as the old boss.

[closeupready]

103. yep.

K&R

[AntiFascist]

104. Extending the wars is the key issue, the question should be why?

SS and Medicare are funded by their own taxes which are taken out of working wages. When you take these reserves out of the equation, then the vast majority of debt is the result of Pentagon spending. Why are Third Way Democrats willing to talk about sacrificing SS and Medicare just to preserve most of Pentagon spending? To me, this seems rather alarming, but of course the talking heads are not talking about it.

[woo me with science]

111. They are still trying to maintain the illusion that they want to end the wars.

It is flat-out misrepresentation and lies. They do not want to end the wars, because the wars are extremely profitable for the banks (because the wars run on borrowed money) and for the corporations who provide arms and technologies.

At this point, enough people still believe that "Democrats" are anti-war that they are trying simply to maintain that illusion through carefully chosen words that mislead. At a certain point, as their actions become increasingly undeniable, they will have to shift to a full defense of increasing the military, just as they have shifted from denying that Social Security and Medicare cuts will happen to defending those cuts as necessary.

But for now they are playing games. They talk about "troop drawdowns," but that is an illusion and a sham, because troops are increasingly being replaced by paid private mercenaries who earn two to ten times as much.

The Pentagon budget is increasing, not decreasing, despite all claims to the contrary. All promised cuts to defense are conveniently to happen sometime in the future and are not reflected in President Obama's own budget for next year.

And remember this post: What are being described as planned deep cuts to the Pentagon budget actually reflect an increase in planned levels of financing. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1639452

We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in several more countries, as well. The budgets continue sky high. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1402614

The Third Way Democrats will not end the wars. They have no intention of ending the wars that profit banks and corporations. Again, follow the actions and the money, not the pretty words.

[Enthusiast]

113. Yeah.

Especially considering that the wars have served no earthly purpose. They are even counterproductive. I do not even think get rid of Saddam Hussein was ultimately in our best interest as he served as a counterbalance to Iranian influence. Afghanistan? We have made a lot of new Jihadists.

[AntiFascist]

163. Actually I think they get away with the deception by showing pie charts of spending....

so when entitlement spending is shown next to defense spending then it looks pretty big. When you consider how much SS and Medicare spending are actually adding to the total national debt, then it is likely to be far less than defense spending.

[on point]

105. I think we need to develop a shadow government ala Britain

When out of power in the UK, the opposition party develops a 'Shadow Government' with representatives in all the key roles and develops alternative policies and budgets to those proposed by the in power group.

In the US it seems to the oligarchy party is in power right now across the board including the media.

We need to develop a 'progressive' shadow government and crowd source alternative budgets and policies (perhaps here on DU, or do we have to go to Move-on or someplace admins??)

With this shadow government perhaps we can get some kind of discussion going about where we need to be going in the world that is discussing things and perhaps a way to convey it to the country.

Right now, the things discussed in Washington and by the talking heads, the conventional wisdom they all employ is nowhere near what the American people want.

What's worse of course is it is completely wrong!

"Gee, we have the wrong model of economics based upon supply side delusions, we keep doing the wrong thing, the economy keeps getting worse. I don't get it what are we doing wrong?" they say.

Time to bypass them and start talking what needs to happen not just in this country to get things fixed, but the world also. We have some serious problems on our doorstep and we can't waste more time dithering with foolish and delusional people when we have

Oceans failing, climate change and peak oil all staring us in the face for instance...

Let's propose our own agenda, like the tea party did, so there is an alternative to consider. It is clear the dem party no longer appears able to do this.

[William769]

108. K&R.

[blkmusclmachine]

112. In other news: water is wet.

Same corporate money. Same corporate influence. Little wonder, then, why these so-called "Democrats" can never find their voice, even when they have majorities and a rooting public behind them. But these same so-called "Democrats" are none to shy to beat a path to Faux Nooz. Sold out--lock, stock, and barrel.

[Enthusiast]

114. Kicked and recommended......nt

[ooglymoogly]

115. You betcha. nt

[ooglymoogly]

116. Third way is just a third way of saying DINO. nt

[Raksha]

117. K & R - This is such a great thread.

The Third Way emperor has no clothes, and has infiltrated and hijacked the Democratic Party. It's way past time for people to start waking up to that inconvenient truth. Thankless job trying to wake them up, though. So many lifelong Democrats who should KNOW what the Democratic Party used to stand for are still in deep denial.

[TBF]

119. The two parties are exactly the same on economic issues - the only difference is stance on social

issues such as GLBT, abortion, prayer in school, etc... (and sometimes not even then).

[alsame]

237. Exactly, the social 'wedge issues' are what distinguishes

them, most of the time.

It's like that joke about Libertarians - they're Republicans who smoke pot. You could say that DLC/Third Way Dems are Republicans who are pro-choice.

[pasto76]

120. Unrec - Democrats have been infiltrated by LIBERALS

much the same way republicans have been over run by conservative fundamentalism.

Drone attacks? really? thats a reason to challenge a sitting president? The year and a half I spent overseas showed me how isolated and INSULATED most americans are. Guess what folks, there are e-v-i-l people in this world. The true meaning of evil. Not GW's meaning.

While folks like you waste time bundling stuff like that in there, the opposition seizes it like a rabid dog and guess what, my livable wage and retirement get overlooked, cause you want to fight about drone attacks on very bad people.

Like, I fully support gay marriage and gay rights. But in case you missed it, nobody will be getting married if we slip into a full on depression. So cant we put that on the back burner and focus on wall street, ending the bush tax cuts and a THOUSAND other things?

I will also add that the cacophony of complaints from the left also drowns out the thousand and 1 very pressing veterans benefits and healthcare issues.

[DirkGently]

133. The idea that "liberals" could be seen as "infiltrating" the Democratic Party proves the OP's point.

[democrank]

145. In case you missed it, pasto 76....

Many liberals fight very, very hard in support of veteran`s issues. A good example is Bernie Sanders of Vermont who has a long, long record of fighting for veterans. Some liberals ARE veterans. Some are married to veterans.Some have loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan at this very moment.

As for the drone attacks....Of course there is evil in the world. I`ve met a few myself, but I happen to think that drone attacks that kill and maim civilians put our soldiers at greater risk because of understandable rage and thirst for revenge.

[EFerrari]

164. 25% of casualties in drone attacks are civilians,

and that's the conservative estimate.

[fascisthunter]

149. goofy

[TheKentuckian]

169. There are plenty of evil people in the world and the worst of the lot are in less danger of being

targeted by drones as you are.

How many perfectly decent and even innocent people are blown to hell trying to get insurgents who are people who weren't thinking about our asses till fire came from the sky and invaders came to their homes?

More harm has come to me and mine than from poor folks half a world away.

[chill_wind]

198. Bizarre. n/t

[abelenkpe]

121. The Third Way is a group of centrists

They pretend to be democrats but are more like republican lite.

They do want to cut entitlements vs tea party nuts that want to completely do away with social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, the department of education, the epa, etc etc etc.

There was a great article on Naked Capitalism about it a couple of months ago.

Anyway both are wrong. The US has a deficit. But we are not poor. The fight is over who will pay the money. Do we make cuts to programs that benefit workers or do we raise the top marginal tax rate, cut subsidies to profitable corporations and defense spending? Republicans/tea nuts/libertarian dopes want to have workers pay.

[jtuck004]

122. Bendict Arnold was a general. (His betrayal was reported as "unexpected" by economists in

Ben Franklin's newspaper).

Benedict Arnold: A Traitor, but Once a Patriot - US News and World ...
http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/27/benedict-arnold-a-traitor-but-once-a-patriot

You know, Arnold was a general with the Revolutionary Army, but committed his particular treason and wound up a general in the British army.

Can't decide if 3rd way are moles or traitors, but I suspect their resumes will look good at Republican HQ.

[whistler162]

125. Yes it has but you are welcome in the Democratic party anyways!

at least you admit you are infiltrating!

[bvar22]

141. Gee. What makes you think THAT?

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

"By their WORKS you will know them."

[Bryn]

181. Hey, Neighbor!

We posted within a minute! I had no idea about the Democratic Party until I saw what happened with Bill Halter, our excellent democratic candidate, then the White House laughed at the Labor for backing him, then losing money due to Halter's loss! I was so sick and disgusted. I asked why would they do that knowing that Blanche Lincoln would lose anyway to Republican John Boozman. I was told this: Because if they couldn't have Blanche Lincoln they would rather have John Boozman. They don't want a progressive democrat one.

I was shocked. That's when I knew. Bill Halter did not lose. The Democratic Establishment made sure he'd lose by shutting down 40 voting polls where he was popular. In my own county!

[chill_wind]

189. I still wretch when I remember Chuck Schumer fist pumping the air for her

when she returned to the Senate and crying ""Fighting Wall Street with one hand, unions with the other!" The ironies within the ironies there boggle the mind. Ironies for lack of a better word. Third Wayer Claire McCaskill, it was reported, rushed over to give her a kiss.

[bvar22]

243. That episode also clearly showed how FUTILE it is...

..to try and "Work on the Local Level" to replace phony democrats with "DEMOCRATS".
To do that "On the Local Level" we have to be able to challenge the full power and wealth of The White House, the DNC, and the DCCC/DSCC. It is a loser's game, and then you get ridiculed by the White House for trying.

The 2010 Arkansas Primary is not the first time I have seen this.
I also saw this in Minnesota in 2005.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=14207

Just compare what the White House (Democratic Party leadership) is willing to do to "save" a worthless, Anti-LABOR DINO like Blanche Lincoln who CROWED about derailing Health Care,
to the amount of assistance they give to REAL Democrats,
like Grayson, Feingold, or Wellstone.....NOTHING.

BTW: After seeing Rahm & his DCCC THUGS in operation in Minnesota in 2005,
my Wife & I decided to move to The Woods, and start growing our own food,
and here we are!

[woo me with science]

190. Thank you.

You've made some really great posts today.

[Bryn]

142. Why is "Liberal" such a bad name now? I love this quote by JFK

"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people; their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties.....if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'." ~ John F. Kennedy

[DirkGently]

153. A lot of work and a lot of dollars went into demonizing the term.

[Armstead]

156. Still going on -- Obama's "tired ideologies" being a case in point

[Bryn]

175. That's terrible way for him to say this.

Ugh!

[Bryn]

174. I thought so, thank you!

:(

[MrMickeysMom]

202. That's for sure...

That, and the word, "social" followed by "ism"...

[BiggJawn]

143. "Third Way" used to be called the "Democratic Leadership Council"

The outfit Joe LIEberman and Eyebeen Baught used to head up.
Same centre-right bullshit, just in a new, improved, bolder form now...

[Dont call me Shirley]

148. Third Way? or Third Reich?

[RBInMaine]

151. We now take a sanity break to return to the regularly scheduled paranoid fringe nuttiness.

[Armstead]

155. I hope you appreciate the irony in that

[placton]

152. Obama being infil-traitor in chief n/t

[Metta]

158. By Trojan horse Republicans.

From the top down.

[deacon]

159. Yeah riiiight.The 'third way." aka another way to stifle votes for democrats in 2012. n/t

[robcon]

160. Who is the "we" that have been infiltrated.

The democratic Party has Always been a big tent, and it's no bigger (in ideological scope) than it ever was. Things are perfectly normal, IMO.

[Armstead]

162. It's a big tent -- But people are pulling on the poles in different directions

[robcon]

267. That's ALWAYS been true - that's why the party is called a big tent.

It holds a lot of different groups with different agendas. Some one-issue types, many economic liberals/social conservatives, leftists, moderates, etc.

[sendero]

168. The Third Way are suddenly all over NPR.

.... and their spokesmen and ideas are INDISTINGUISHABLE from those of right wing stink tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation etc.

They can call themselves Marxists but they are simply run of the mill sellout Republicans.

[Chimichurri]

Is Randi Rhodes one of them? Cuz she's blowin' my mind with the shit she's shoveling lately.

[Smarmie Doofus]

186. For instance: nt

[Chimichurri]

234. She said this is a great deal. That the Republicans got nothing. she even backed that

up using a Rush Limpaugh clip saying the same thing. As if all of a sudden he's right about something.

[Honeycombe8]

180. So you're saying that YOU are the "REAL American" and not those who think different from you?

Hmmmmm. That rings a bell. Where have I heard that before?

:think:

[woo me with science]

191. How do you "think different"?

And what on earth are you talking about re: being "an American"?

[chill_wind]

193. We're saying Republicans and neocons already have a party of their own. n/t

[unkachuck]

197. K&R....n/t

[Jakes Progress]

203. Third Way Democrats = reagan democrats.

They fell for the reagan message and brought it back to the party with them after the gipper.

They "feel" liberal on social issues. The believe in conservative economic measures. Which means support for corporate desires. They buy and peddle the "job creator" myth. The believe in trickle down. Deep down they believe in social Darwinism. Those rich people (which includes them) are better and smarter and more deserving than the "ordinary" people.

They feel sorry for the "ordinary" people and want to help them if it doesn't mean cutting corporate profits or impinging on the very rich becoming more rich. When push comes to shove, the middle class and the poor will always take the back seat to the group with which they identify, which isn't us.

Some of this is an age thing. Some of it is a self-image thing. Some of it is not being able to see history as something that really happened or that the sacrifices and suffering of the heros of the near past actually has anything to do with them.

They are not Democrats. They can call themselves that, but anyone can call themselves anything. It's what you do and what you fight for that makes you a Democrat. Just because the koch-heads have co-opted so many of our elected officials with lots of cash doesn't mean they can buy our party.

Fuck 'em.

[orbitalman]

206. K & R

[saras]

208. Much as DU has been

When someone demands a university degree worth of data to 'prove' an assertion of well-known, widely accepted fact, you're most likely dealing with an infiltrator.

So who put Social Security on the table anyways? The T(errorist) party asked (demanded) it on the table, but the rest of the players could have just said, and the reasonable world seems to have expected them to say, "no, we're dealing with the debt. Social Security is a separate discussion."

So who agreed with them that it was open to negotiation? This really should be a simple question of fact.

[Mimosa]

215. Common sense, Saras.

Social Security and medicare need strengthening. They are not bargaining chips.

[bvar22]

244. Actually, NO.

The Republicans in NO way asked for Social Security/Medicare to be put on the table.
President Obama volunteered them at the beginning of the "negotiations",
and IF Boehner hadn't walked out, we might have lost them right then.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

211. Public service announcement to all crybabies...

Here are your choices.

1. Have a big-tent party in which you will disagree with some of your own members, and understand that you won't ever get 100% of what you want.

2. Have a perfectly ideologically pure party, incredibly small because you constantly purge anyone who isn't 110% in agreement with what you want now now now now now, and, because you demonize voters, you couldn't win an election if the opposition candidate was caught raping cute little puppies on national TV.

PICK ONE - BUT ONLY ONE


I mean seriously, people. I've been reading the D.U. basically since it started, and I've seen this exact kind of whiny article more times than I can count. It's always the same: "Democratic electeds are traitors for listening to public opinion instead of following the 100% ideologically pure line. Let's draw up an enemies list - not of Republicans - but Democrats. Maybe we can drive them out of the party by whining at them - annoyingly. We'll win the next election by shrinking the party!". And of course this type of comment always is upvoted out the wazoo by the slactivists who don't raise a finger to actually volunteer for the candidates they say they want, because while it would actually do something, it would also entail quite a bit more work than writing screeds on the D.U.

Don't you get tired of posting this kind of junk? Ever?

Or rather, do you really think that getting a couple dozen upvotes here is going to actually accomplish anything?

As a campaign volunteer, I am perfectly happy to work my ass off for candidates who are considerably more liberal than I am, and sometimes I've been surprised that, yes, they actually managed to get into office. But do you hear me whining that, say, Senator Merkley voted against the compromise plan that kept the U.S. out of default? Nope. I am grown up enough not to expect I will always get what I think is right. Funny thing is though, that I always seem to be more than welcome at the campaign election parties.

That's because I am a Democrat. From the rural conservative section of my state (about 2/3rds of it). And I bring home the vote.

And rather ironically, I'm reasonably sure that I've done far more for the liberal cause than most of the radicals who post here.

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

[sabrina 1]

227. Big Tent did not mean to include Republicans who found their own

party had too many religious nuts in it and infiltrated this Party, then tried to turn it into Republican lite. We don't need two Republican parties. They have their own party, let them go try to reform it.

And please refrain from using the New Democrat/Third Way talking points such as 'reality based community'. That one got old about six years ago.

This is why I do not like think tanks, well there are a lot of reasons, but one of them is that they sit around thinking up what they think are 'brilliant' ideas, like handing out 'talking points' eg.

What that does is create group think and group speech and just so you know, when you meet someone who is spouting other people's silly cliches, you feel like you're talking to someone who cannot think for themselves. Use your own thoughts and words, and be original.

As for what people here do, you have no idea what you are talking about. Without the work of people like DUers, Democrats would have a hard time getting people as dedicated and hard-working to get them elected.

We want to belong to a party where the leadership at least resembles the party we joined. This one has become hard to distinguish from the Republican Party. And keep your lectures for people who need them. We understand politics very well. This condescending attitude is something else that seems to permeate the right wing of the Democratic Party and it is a failed strategy and only serves to confirm what people in this thread are saying.

[bvar22]

245. +1

This used to be my sig line,
until I realized how fucking FUNNY that statement has become.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[sabrina 1]

270. I like that sig line!

:-)

[ConservativeDemocrat]

250. Wow -- project much?

So your remedy is to tell everyone to the right of the extreme left fringe of the Democratic Party (which is what the Kucinich-loving D.U. represents) to go join the Republicans, is that it?

That way, the Senate will be 80 GOP to 20 Purist Democrat, we'll have a Republican House, and a Republican President. And it will get rid of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and most everything else that keeps us from turning into a third world country. But you will be able to feel morally superior, wallowing in liberal sanctimony like some socialist version of Church Lady, while kids out in the countryside, and the ones in the inner city, quite literally end up uneducated and malnourished.

Brilliant strategy there, my dear. I'm sure it would be 100% approved by Karl Rove.

No. Seriously.


You also say you don't like "think tanks" because they create "group think", which is, really, totally unlike the Democratic Underground's perpetual circle-jerk of Democratic Party bashing. And apparently, if the Democrats that you insult and/or lie about as a matter of course don't keep quiet like you think they should, that betrays a "condescending attitude" which entirely "confirm what" ideological extremists "are saying".

To quote Jon Stewart, "That is, if I may say, some of the most free-range, organically grown, disingenuous, ideologically marinated, un-self-awareness I've ever seen in the wild."

[BlueMTexpat]

223. With the incessant attacks on "Democrats" and President Obama

that I see here on a daily basis, IMO, it is DU that has been "infiltrated."

Am I disappointed? Yes.

But I know who the REAL enemies are. And they are NOT the Dems.

Please remember that. Everytime we turn on ourselves, the Rethugs win. It has been their most successful strategy since 1968. Please revisit your history.

[Kolesar]

230. There are plenty of repuke DUers who unrecommend threads that are uncontroversially good for Dems

And some of the repukes actively post on DU

[JoePhilly]

266. +1

[The Wizard]

226. It's all show business for ugly people

Republicans propose to destroy the working class and Democrats pretend to stop them.

[woo me with science]

259. Nice summary. nt

[tomp]

228. you should read chris hedges.

"the death of the liberal class" exposes your shallow thinking on this matter. the democratic has been decidedly unfriendly to progressives since the beginning of the century.

to focus all your ire on the dlc in these recent times is misleading.

even the "progressives" in the party are useless in the final analysis. any politician who can stomach associating with the bulk of democratic politicians is suspect.

a real progressive would dissociate him/herself from the actions of the party as a whole and oppose it.

[mdmc]

231. circle d baby!```

[pnwmom]

232. It is a myth to think that the "old" or "real" Democratic party

consisted only of progressives and liberals. In the past, both the major parties had members across the political spectrum. The Democrats had George Wallace Dixiecrats, for example, and Eugene McCarthy Liberals. The Republicans had Goldwater and the John Birch Society on one end and John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller on another.

It is only in recent times that the parties have arranged themselves around ideological lines; but even now the Democratic party remains much more diverse than the Republicans.

[florida08]

236. Have to agree

"Third Way" Democrats who do not share the same values and goals we do."

The Third way is a misnomer. Believers claim to have the interest at heart for the full spectrum of the country.
However it is self defeating. When foxes are ruling the chicken coop how long before chickens disappear?

Clinton's reforms gave us NAFTA and the repeal of Glass/Steagall. He also set up the Community Reinvestment Act that was to help lift regulations on lower incomes..something called redlining. We can now see how laissez-faire investors not only corrupted but exploited it to the hilt. The CRA is not responsible for the subprime debacle but institutions that weaken or relaxed their own rules in the private sector. The CRA rules never changed.

But I hear republicans blaming IT for the reason of the subprime running amuk. This happened under the Bush administration. 8 years of private sector business on steroids advocating greed is good. Now what did they demand from us when it collapse? Payment. They were in shock when the first vote was a resounding no. So they went to the democrats who agreed to support them. Why? Because our retirements, money markets, deposits were all going to be lost. The dollar would have been worthless. 6 Trillion was removed from this economy at any rate.

There is no middle path to govern when you have wolves at one end and sheep at the other unless you are going to protect the sheep with a concrete wall. And that's not what is happening. We're being told we have to sacrifice for what the wolves did. He's asking the wolves to kick in too..but they're laughing at him because they have an army of vampires with fresh new capital stolen from our economy with which to bribe the shepherds. They also have newly elected apes to stong arm them.

Third Way might as well be called slow corporatism. Just shocks us more slowly.

[a2liberal]

239. K&R

I wish more people would recognize this.

[JoePhilly]

242. If you don't like THIS democratic party, then maybe you need to go start a new one.

I'm not sure how you plan to kick out the evil democrats that you don't like and "reclaim" your party.

[woo me with science]

251. Funny thing about the Third Way.

There is always a strange and abrupt oscillation between insisting that the administration shares the same values and goals as other Democrats ("He just can't get it PASSED right now!")...

...and accusing other Democrats of being extreme and unreasonable for having those very same values and goals.

Hmm.

[JoePhilly]

252. You are saying you want to "reclaim" the party from some other group.

I didn't put those words in your mouth. You said it.

Bottom line ... you are PROJECTING ...

I did not accuse YOU of being "extreme and unreasonable for having those very same values and goals".

It is YOU who are claiming other Democrats don't share the correct set of values.

And it is "from them" (those Democrats who you don't think don't share the correct values) that you feel the need to "reclaim" your party.

You are the one making an accusation. And you can't even see it.

[woo me with science]

253. LOL

Yeah, you only told me to leave the party. :eyes:

[JoePhilly]

254. Not really, I asked you how you were going to get the "bad dems"

to LEAVE.

And the reality is that you can't.

Or can you?

Please, tell me how you will expel the bad dems?

I'm all ears.

[woo me with science]

256. Nonsense. You never asked me a thing.

Let's recap, shall we?

I posted a thread. It said those with Republican-corporate values and goals shouldn't be in the party. Then you got all upset and told me to leave.

How strange.

[JoePhilly]

261. And in the body, I indicated that I can't see how you will get rid

of these bad dems.

You do see that right?

Try to focus ...

You have said that you want to remove the "bad dems" from the party.

I don't see how you plan to do that.

In fact, I'm about 100% sure, you can't.

So again ... how you going to remove them?

Because either you need a METHOD to remove "them", or you need to do something else, like start a new party.

Am I wrong? Do you have a way to get rid of the "bad dems"?

[woo me with science]

264. Nice shift. That was truly a work of art. :)

I suggest you read the thread. There are many discussions along these lines, but I think most are agreeing that identifying/naming the problem is the first step.

....

Thank you for your contribution to this thread, JoePhilly. I sincerely mean that. :evilgrin:

[JoePhilly]

265. Well, you've sort of answered the question ... I guess .... you have no

idea how to expel the bad dems.

Unless calling them "infiltrators" on DU counts as "step 1" in your plan.

:rofl:

[woo me with science]

268. You still haven't explained

why you are so offended by a post stating simply that politicians working for corporate-Republican values do not belong in the Democratic Party.

Why taunt about the difficulty getting rid of Dems working for banking and corporate interests?

[chill_wind]

247. Call them out

and trade them in.

Third Way on Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x617879

[woo me with science]

257. :)

Great link. Thanks. :hi:

[fadedrose]

263. I believe in the infiltration, but Obama is not an infiltrator -

I think he is aware of them and keeps them near to keep an eye on them..there are too few that I think he trusts.