HEY DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP! I know you troll this place. Listen up.

[Matariki]

I've received your dozens of emails today asking for money around last night's loss in Wisconsin. You know what - I want to hear what you plan on doing about CAMPAIGN FINANCE and CITIZEN'S UNITED. Because you will never, never, get enough donations from your increasingly impoverished base to equal that shit.

You had a House AND Senate majority for two years. Why didn't you do something about this when you had the chance?

Sure you are better than the alternative, but it's often difficult to not see you as enablers. And damn it, maybe you should wait a little for the grief and anger to settle before using stuff as a contribution gimmick. It comes off as disingenuous - all things considered.

[Scuba]

1. "You had a House AND Senate majority for two years." Well, not really....

... the Dems did not have the super-majority needed to stop Republican filibusters. Remember, Republicans held up Al Franken's being seated until July of 2009; Ted Kennedy died in August.

Democrats had the super-majority only for about six weeks. The rest of the time any single Republican could put the brakes on the Senate, and they have been.

[Matariki]

4. Yeah, and they could have done something about that stupid "super-majority" thing too.

what a bunch of bs.

[pnwmom]

28. The Obama administration couldn't force the Senate to enact new rules.

You don't seem to understand the politics of the situation. The Senators hold on to their separate power for dear life -- even, perhaps especially, the chance to be obstructionist.

[Matariki]

40. And I wasn't talking about the Obama administration.

Harry Reid *talked* about changing the filibuster rules but did nothing. Never even once forced the Republicans to filibuster in actuality.

I suspect I understand 'the politics of the situation' perfectly well - and that's to maintain the status quo for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful folks who really run the show.

[rustydog]

45. Harry thought the Repubs would cower and back off when he made the filibuster threat

Just like the Dems caved when the Republicans were in the majority and threatened to kill the filibuster.
The dems have to grow a spine. Talking in sound bites without having some action to back up the catch-phrase of the day does no good.
When will the National party recognize this?

[texshelters]

73. What about using cloture

to end the filibuster like Reid said he might? Those of us who are disappointed with the way Congressional Democrats failed to make progress with a majority in 09-10 know the rules about passing bills and it's insulting to suggest otherwise. Many of us, me included, wanted more passion and fight and fire. It's as if the Senate Democrats didn't care, and the blue dogs were the worst.

They live by the same rules as Republicans, but why were they able to push things through when Bush was President? It's because they fight for what they believe, even though what they believe is destructive.

We need an LBJ in the Senate who can push and bully legislation through. He was an SOB, but he was usually on the right side of domestic issues.

In sum, passing bills is NOT just about procedure, you have to have passion and guile as well and the Democrats lack both.

And where's the fight to end the filibuster? Reid just said he would do it to look tough; he didn't mean it.

PTxS

[Dustlawyer]

120. It's never been about the "Dem's growing a spine." they roll over b/c that is what they are paid

to do! Why do we always say the spine crap? Are Democratic law makers congenitally deformed? Hell no! They want to stay in power and that is the role that they have to play if they want to remain in power. Take off the rose colored glasses! Our current system is designed to give us the appearance that they are fighting for us, that's it!

[quakerboy]

42. The Democratic Senate leadership

could have done something about it.

The OP wasnt addressed to the Obama Administration. It was addressed to the Democratic party Leadership. And if they are not in communication with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, then they are doing worse at their job than any of us imagined.

[OrwellwasRight]

72. The Senate Dems could have changed their own rules.

They could have held Lieberman's fucking feet to the fire and forced him to vote with other Dems in order to keep his Chairmanship, etc. You can't have it both ways. The Dems had a big giant majority and chose not to use it. Now they have a little tiny one and choose not to use it. The Republicans had a little tiny majority under Bush and USED IT (No Child, PATRIOT Act, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, RIDICULOUS tax and spending policies, pretty much all the BULLSHIT you can name). Don't blame a failure to act on the Dems not having a big enough majority. It's all in how you use that majority and they chose and choose not to.

[texshelters]

75. Thanks, you are correct

keep it up!

PTxS

[bbgrunt]

93. amen.

[Agony]

99. THIS!

...

D... want any more of my money? WORK for it! like I did

sick and tired of being sick and tired


Cheers

[October]

121. Excellent.

Like the O.P., I knew I'd have emails looking for donations, etc. <gag!>

I unsubscribed from all of them and blasted a few!

Sick-to-death of the stupidity and how they've mishandled everything.

How the hell can my $5 or $25 match Koch?

[SomeGuyInEagan]

140. + a bajillion.

As if by plan.

[librechik]

152. correct n/t

[Canuckistanian]

79. You mean Obama had ZERO influence over Harry Reid?

Come to think of it, doesn't look like Reid is influenced by anything. He's still the triangulating fool he's always been.

[shcrane71]

6. The could have framed the debates and narratives better. nt

[AllyCat]

106. We have to appeal to emotions like they do. Logic is lost on the low-info voters

Here in Wisconsin, guns were NEVER part of the debate. Yet many union voters, especially in the north, planned to vote for Walker because Barrett would "take away my guns".

All have rights and that is our goal and we should not back down, but we need to hone in on the hot button, glitzy emotional advertising like they do. And we need to to it BEFORE they do.

[shcrane71]

115. Yet way north WI went blue...

I still think your election was stolen. I can't believe that 13% of Obama supporters voted for Walker. It's not as if Walker has really reached out to anyone with Dem leanings.

Another friend told me that she thinks the northern Wisconsinites were blue because Walker has threatened to privatize the deer hunt which brings millions (last I heard it was a billion) dollars to your state.

[bvar22]

10. That never bothered the Republicans...

...when THEY had the White House.

Excuses...excuses.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. What you said.

The spinelessness has been appalling.

[Magoo48]

56. Agreed, more spine would be good....

Our congress critters need to back progressive popular movements. If they have a clear vision on something, Dems should enlist the help of "we the people". For now at least, the repunks have the money. But, we have people power just waiting to be respectfully accessed. Have the walkin' shoes close at hand and don't be afraid to use them. Don't talk about fucking peas, talk about economic equality. Stand with those of us who are your base, physically as well as retorically. We must match the other side's money with our own actions, and our leaders need to not simply stand with us but be willing to lead in every sense of the word......not holding my breath....peace

[sendero]

57. I know lackluster ineffectiveness..

.. when I see it and that is all I have seen for years. I am beyond the point of believing any longer than the Democratic party really stands for what is commonly believed to be Democratic principles around here any longer.

These guys are not doing anything because they don't WANT, or better yet their owners don't WANT them to do anything.

Those of you still believing in the political horse race and that if "our side" wins things will be substantially different are simply amusing at this point. Wake up. Pay attention. That's not how it is and not how it is going to be anytime soon.

And oh by the way, THERE IS NO RECOVERY.

[crunch60]

64. I have said the same thing for some time.. The Dems and the Republicans

are one big club, and we ain't in it.

[nineteen50]

68. the republacrats

[obxhead]

11. It wasn't the filibuster that stopped progress

it was the THREAT of a filibuster that stopped them. How many times did Dem leadership force the R's to actually filibuster shit during those 2 years.

Had I been Speaker I would have forced them to actually stand and recite whatever nonsense they wanted to for every single threat.

[Puzzler]

16. Bingo! (nt)

.

[pnwmom]

30. That was how the rules were written. And the Senate, not Obama, wrote the rules. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. Specifically, what rule was written this way? And can you support this, if at all, with a link?

[AllyCat]

108. And once again, the OP is NOT addressing Obama.

[BlueCaliDem]

96. The filibuster doesn't work that way. It's not like in the movie.

Oh sure, Reid could've asked the Republicans to stand there and recite the Los Angeles phonebook, but the rules don't say they are obligated to.

If you wanted to know what a filibuster would've looked like, all you have to do is tune in to C-Span on a lazy afternoon when they play the classic music. Unlike the Republicans, the Dems would ALL have to be present. The Republicans could get away with sending in two aides in their stead, and the moment the Democrats would vote for cloture, all the aide has to do is call, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

"The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

The only way to break it is using the Constitutional Option, a.k.a. the Nuclear Option.

But Reid had the chance to do away with the filibuster rule in January 2011. He did nothing.

[randome]

110. In other words, you are in favor of Congress wasting time.

Just like they're doing now anyways.

[jeff47]

118. The filibuster never worked that way

While "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" is a lovely move, the filibuster has never worked that way.

They way it works is they hold a vote to close debate on a bill. If they don't get 60 votes, debate does not end. There is no need to fill the debate time with anything.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

145. Exactly!

Harry only called out the mattresses one time and that was for the Affordable Care Act. I agree with you totally. There would have been at least 2 benefits accruing from forcing those thugs to stand in the well and defend their positions... one of them being the American people would have seen just what jerks are their senators.

[freshwest]

14. Plus the Dem with a brain problem couldn't attend and then there was Liebermann and his threats to

Refuse to caucus with the Democrats if he didn't get his way after Democrats didn't support his re-election campaign. The majority was on paper only. The battle was lost in the states themselves.

Joe got into office by setting up a party about himself alone and won against the Democrat who won the primary on an anti-war platform. The details get glossed over in the blame game.

The majority was always razor thin, and Democrats decided the 111th Congress wasn't good or fast enough, so they sat at home, letting the Tea Party take seats in 2010. No mystery about this.

[bvar22]

21. Oh NO!!!

"It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!
He was this BIG Super Bully who beat up the WHOLE Democratic Party,
and RUINED it for everybody!
It was HORRIBLE!!!
There was NOTHING we could Dooooooo."



There WERE ways to deal with Lieberman & the rest.
The WORST thing to do is submit to the extortion & demands.
Go study a little political history.
Read Up on "The Johnson Treatment".
http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

Lieberman was just the patsy in the Kabuki Theater.
He had nothing to lose,
and was WELL rewarded for playing Judas so well.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[freshwest]

24. I lived in that era and this ain't the same.

Johnson presided over a Congress that had years of Democratic control, and this last Congress was fresh after being stonewalled since Gingrich. The Congress Johnson had was still there when Nixon got in and was ready to impeach his ass.

'Go study a little political history.'

Hum. LBJ didn't stop the war, and had to give his party to Humphrey. Nixon won because LBJ was so good at cajoling, he could have stayed in office another 4 years...

If you can't see past a hatred of Obama, stay at home like the Democrats did in 2010. Then find another Democrat to blame if another ever gets elected again.

'Go study a little political history.'

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. And more ...

the politicians of LBJ's day were of wholly different cloth and character of today's politicians.

LBJ (or other party leadership) could grab a legislature by the ear and get his point across. Then, that ear-grabbed legslature would fall in line, or not; but what that legislator would not have done is have his staffer(s) leak video, recordings and/or transcripts of the confrontation; nor would that legislator call a press conference to complain about how mean LBJ had talked to him.

[freshwest]

39. Thanks. MLK is gone, too. Sadly, that era was before decades of GOP rule.

[bvar22]

49. a whole different era?

...only for those looking for excuses.

Extortion, Blackmail, and threats have been around a loooong time,
ant the correct way to deal with them hasn't changed.

[Bluenorthwest]

107. I remember DNC Chicago 68. Just after the murder of our front runner

Yeah, politics back then was just silky and easy and filled with Republicans of high ethics. Like Nixon. I remember people being fire hosed and I recall the dogs, I remember Governors standing on school steps, I recall John Birch Society which said JFK was a traitor, oh yeah, he also got murdered as did Martin and Malcolm. Because it was a different, nicer time!
Hard to believe the stuff I read here.
All those excuses, and you leave out the rest....Johnson took office after JFK was killed in the streets, so 'he had it so easy' is a line of thinking I find repellant.

[sendero]

112. Who said anything about NICER?

Nice people, like say OBAMA for instance, don't get anything done. If you don't get that there are no words that are going to make you get it.

Obama played nice guy, the country lost. It is as simple as that. And it wouldn't be so bad if the Republicans played nice too, but they never do and they never will and nice guys are USELESS for dealing with their shit.

[freshwest]

131. What makes you think I didn't know that you said? Is tearing down Democrats now going to help bring

Back John and Bobby? Would they be sneering at other Democrats the way that people are doing here?

Where did I say LBJ had it so easy? Or that it was a nicer time? Made excuses?

I had to argue with real life Birchers in my face calling for JFK to be killed in the year before he was killed. I lived through the days when the Nazi party and KKK did not hide themselves, when Evers was killed in his own yard, the little girls were bombed, when the firehoses were being used for people asking to be treated as human beings. When people were being beaten and killed in my city for the crime of being black, brown, gay or just having long hair by the police.

I volunteered in all campaigns from city, state and national as a teenager before I was able to vote, and petitioned for the 18 year old vote as my classmates and friends were sent to a war they could not even vote on. Yet there are those here who disdain Democrats now in office so much, they say it's of no use to vote now. I find that repellant, when people died to give them that right across the south.

I was in the anti-war movement, traveling from coast to coast. Walked the street and met the tear gas, felt the hurt and the outrage. I worked all of those elections for LBJ, RFK and tHH and beyond that.

I'm not the one that needs to be talked down to about history, because I lived it and you assume a great deal. I quoted what was said to me, out of line.

The reason the GOP has won elections and will keep on winning is because they do believe in voting for their candidates, and we don't, from what I'm reading here lately. I don't see them going on attack, ripping each other's guts out when they see something not going their way.

If we directed the anger I see here at the GOP we might win elections. Instead we are tearing each other up and the party. So the results will be in the GOP's favor.
They are laughing at us on other websites now, and some of them right here are, reading these posts where so many are using RW memes to diss the Democratic Party at Democratic Underground.

If you want to keep on fighting with those who are going to vote for the Democratic candidate in November, and support our local Democratic candidates, cool. If people keep dissing my candidates and Democrats, like my represetatives, they might hear a few words from me on that. Because mine are anti-war, pro-union, pro-human rights and I am tired of seeing them all hit with a broad brush of hatred. If I wanted to read that, I could go to FR.

Those of us who saw how a Democratic majority can make a difference as it did when Nixon was held to account by a majority of Democrats in the Watergate era, will continue to be Democrats, even if it's passe to some.

If the current slate of Democrats isn't good enough for people, the GOP has a slate that is ready to take their place. And the kind of stuff I'm reading here today just reinforces their desire to vote. Sadly, I don't see it on this side of the aisle.

I'm tired of people who ought to be friends here, progressives, liberal and Democrats, and want to fight at the drop of a hat. I don't like the way that makes me feel, or react, as I see it as losing the country to the Republicans. So those who want to fight other Democrats more than win against Republicans, will keep up. I'm with those who want to win these elections for a better future.

I'm sure nothing that I've said will change people's minds who are looking to blame all Democrats. Minds are made up on the elections that just recently happened, with Republicans dancing in the streets and on the media. It's bad enough to hear that and to hear it here too is a bit much.
Not that you have been crowing, but you want someone to blame, and you seem to have picked me. Goodbye now.

[hifiguy]

25. LBJ would have kicked Lieberman's balls through the

roof of his mouth. Quite possibly literally. Say what you will about the man, when it came to important pieces of legislation, the tall Texan was a master at finding a way to get them through, whether by hook or by crook both as Majority Leader and as POTUS. He understood what was at stake and acted accordingly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. See my comment #35 ...

And before lieberman got up off the floor, he would have had his staffer(s) leak video of the kicking, and lieberman would have already had three press conferences about the ball kicking.

It's a different day.

And I won't even go into the complicating racial angle ...

[sabrina 1]

133. But that would be covered. 'You leak any embarrassing video, and guess what we've got ready for

primetime'. Think it doesn't happen, I bet it does.

Besides, his staffers would not be present if he was invited to the Oval Office for a little chat. Lieberman is not popular anywhere, on the left or the right, traitors rarely are even with those who appreciate their treachery. No one trusts them.

The bottom line is that if Dems wanted him out of the way, or wanted him to get in line, they would have done so.

I bet there were all kinds of excuses during LBJ's era also. Eg, he did not want to end the war, so he didn't. That turned out to be his downfall. I bet he made all kinds of excuses for not doing so. But just like now, many people didn't buy them. LBJ got done what he wanted to get done with no excuses. He was for the war and he got that to, against the wishes of his constituency.

Presidents have power and they can get things done that they want to get done, or is it now that they get things done that Corporations want them to get done. That is the question.

But the excuses do not wash. If we are to accept them, then we have to accept that the president has no power so it doesn't matter who is president. I do not accept that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. I disagree that ...

The bottom line is that if Dems wanted him out of the way, or wanted him to get in line, they would have done so.

The only real tool in the pursuasion tool box is in appropriations, which is controlled by the gop, not the Democrats and certainly not the President. And the gop will protect lieberman, not because they like or trust him; but because they NEED him.

But the excuses do not wash. If we are to accept them, then we have to accept that the president has no power so it doesn't matter who is president. I do not accept that.

The president has the power to ask, cajol, threaten and beg, and little else; the president is not a dictator.

[deaniac21]

37. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!!!

[sabrina 1]

54. Yes, from all I've read about him, Lieberman would have been afraid to come back to DC after

his betrayal of the Dem Party, but instead, he was given a standing ovation by Democrats and then rewarded with chairs of committees, after which he betrayed them even more in 2008 when he campaigned for McCain/Palin. And still, they kept him in his powerful positions. It is sickening, the weakness, they appeasement even of traitors like Lieberman.

[davidwparker]

34. +1

[datasuspect]

101. HELL MUTHAFUCKIN YEAH!

this.

[OrwellwasRight]

74. "Democrats decided the 111th Congress wasn't good or fast enough, so they sat at home"

Are you kidding me? Evidence please.

How about voters were mad about the bailouts and about a health care bill they didn't understand. They felt that taxpayer money was going out the door while workers suffered and the Democratic party didn't have a very good narrative to combat FOX's lies. Your story about it being progressives' fault has no basis in reality. What we do know is that seniors switched, on the order of 19% from Obama to Republicans. Seniors are hardly the bastions of the progressive movement angry that the Dems didn't go "far enough or fast enough." But you know what, the progressives are the doormat of the party, so let's blame them. Just like it as their fault Gore lost, even though Katherine Harris screwed with voting rights in Florida and Gore couldn't even win his own state, right?

[freshwest]

80. Interesting argument. The supremes steal in 2000, when progressive voted in droves, were even

Turned back with police barricades, and the governors of TX and FL conspired to rig the voting lists as they are doing now.

Greg Palast documented it very well, said in 2004 that a massive turnout would be needed to overcome systematic GOP voter disenfranchisement. The turnout was affected; some who didn't like Kerry, but there was clear fraud, for which some GOP thugs got prison time.

The massive turnout of 2008 was the only way to overcome the gerrymandering and disenfranchisment which the GOP has not stopped doing since before 2000, as they had their plans in the works while Clinton was in office.

And yes, you just gave the evidence or rather the excuse yourself, didn't you for people not turning out in 2010:

How about voters were mad about the bailouts and about a health care bill they didn't understand. They felt that taxpayer money was going out the door while workers suffered and the Democratic party didn't have a very good narrative to combat FOX's lies.

And did not vote, thanks for proving my point for me. No matter how we argued to those who picked those out to not vote for, they stayed home. By saying it did no good to vote, a sentiment constantly spewed everywhere, we kill ourselves.

The GOP does think it does some good to vote in every election and they promote voting among themselves as a religious or economic necessity. Yet we don't.

They know we outnumber them and fear the power of our votes very much. They fight our being able to vote every chance they get and that ought to say something to you about the value of voting. But some found reasons to abstain.

I am a progressive, why would I blame those who are progressive and voted?

People who stayed home out of spite or apathy for the reasons you seem to think were good ones, buying RW memes, are to blame, not the Democrats for failing to make the case. Those who were busy in local elections knew what was at stake, they didn't need to be convinced sitting an election out was a great way to teach anyone anything.

But those who didn't see what was going on in real life in 2010 and bought what Fox said, waiting for a sign from Obama or God, take your pick, gave the country over to the GOP and the Tea Party, state by state and nationally.

If you think Gore screwed up to lose the election, when Palast and others proved the suppression of voters of color in TN and elsewhere, consider your sources.

I am a progressive who votes in every election because I know what not voting brings about. If you want to discourage Democrats from voting because you don't respect our Democratic candidates, that's your right.

The last 24 hours have been very hard on everyone who supports progressive causes and we are short tempered today. We should not be, but I don't have to fight with you, or you with me. That's your choice.

[OrwellwasRight]

135. Wow.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about????

"How about voters were mad about the bailouts and about a health care bill they didn't understand. They felt that taxpayer money was going out the door while workers suffered and the Democratic party didn't have a very good narrative to combat FOX's lies.

And did not vote, thanks for proving my point for me. No matter how we argued to those who picked those out to not vote for, they stayed home. By saying it did no good to vote, a sentiment constantly spewed everywhere, we kill ourselves."

Um, hello, I said VOTERS. Not progressives. How can voters not vote?????

Not all progressives are voters and not all voters are progressives. Certiainly the voters "who did not understand the health care bill" and were "concerned about taxpayer money" and listened "to Fox's lies" were not and ARE not Progressives. These are the factors that caused VOTERS no to vote for Dems in 2010. IT was not PROGRESSIVES staying home because Congress was not progressive enough. It was VOTERS not voting for Democrats. Please read posts before declaing rhetorical victory.

I'll ask again: evidence please???????

[OrwellwasRight]

137. Oh, and PS,

What did I say to discourage people from voting? Or to say that I approve of people not voting?

And "the health care bill will bend the cost curve" was an excellent message that convinced how many voters? Were you even listening to how the Dems sold the health care bill? It was crappy crappy messaging that did not convince anyone not already for it, certainly not the ill informed who listen to FOX.

Try reading people's posts, not reading into them. And I will have to fight with you so long as you make up things like "it's the progressives' fault we did not win in 2010" and that I support "not voting."

[polichick]

22. Not to mention the "Democratic" *cough* blue dogs...

...who have no problem standing with Republicans.

That said, do we really believe that the Democratic party has any intention of enacting real campaign finance reform, dealing with Citizens United (or any of the SC members who openly show their conflicts of interest), or enacting new voter laws so that we know our votes are counted?

[davidwparker]

32. Supermajority is the excuse. As you can see, at the beginning of the next session,

the other side of the same coin did nothing about that one either.

Rumor is Harry Powder Dry regrets not doing something about it then and will do the next session -- assuming the Dems keep the Senate. But, as I think about it, if they loose the Senate it will get lowered because Republicans don't let things get in the way of getting their agendas through be they in the majority or in the minority.

[Honeycombe8]

33. True. And because the Dem Party is more tolerant of others' opinions, it takes a super

majority to do anything by the Dems alone. There are just so many of them that go their own way, are moderate, or are progressive, or whatever. Very few bills do the Dems ALL vote the same way on, unlike the Republicans.

[sabrina 1]

38. This argument makes no sense. What you are saying is that Republicans in the

minority have more power than Democrats with a majority. Why could the MAJORITY not put the brakes on the MINORITY? Could someone please, please explain this to me?

[Dragonfli]

51. No Sabrina, because when you try to explain bullshit, you have nothing to point at but pieces of

excrement. Pointing at grass in a turd enlightens nothing and they know it.

They are offering the brave defense of the Washington Generals as an heroic option, a real fight against the Republicans when in reality, it is a crappy joke of an attempt to pretend to fight for one's team

[sabrina 1]

62. I have to agree, I have yet to have anyone explain this to me in a logical manner, minus the talking

points. Bottom line is the very argument that Dems need a 'bigger majority' in order to get things done, logically says that the 'minority' is more powerful than their majority.

[Dragonfli]

66. The funny part is that according to such "logic" we should seek the power of the minority instead.

crazy if you ask me, but so seldom have they asked me about anything I must admit it hasn't come up,

[Egalitarian Thug]

78. Yes of course, only republicans can achieve anything with a majority.

This crap was annoying three years ago, now it's just pathetic.

[JDPriestly]

81. Democrats chose to abide by the existing rules. That was a choice -- a wrong choice.

[0rganism]

89. never stopped the Republicans

When they have the majority, they pass their agenda.

When they're in the minority, they use parliamentary tactics to block our agenda.

We're playing our "11 dimensional chess" or whatever and they're playing smash-mouth football. They stomp all over the chessboard and our reps get busy whining about the broken pieces instead of moving quickly and decisively to stop them from doing it ever again.

[RC]

103. Al Franken was help up by the Minnesota Republicans and their stone walling.

Nothing to do with Congress. It was all with their control of Minnesota.

[Scuba]

105. Re-read my post; I should have said "Minnesota Republicans" for clarity. Thanks.

[bonniebgood]

116. The Dems could have changed this

super-majority BS the day Nancy Pelosi took the gavel. Jan 3, 2009. The new President
did not want it. The new President assumed his charm would tame the racist beast. NOT

[Scuba]

119. Can't disagree. Welcome to DU bonniebgood.

[Egalitarian Thug]

130. You're right. They had it for four years and did nothing that wasn't what the republicans wanted. nt

[racaulk]

148. Bush never had a supermajority either, which is why the Senate never gave him what he wanted.

Oh wait...

[RKP5637]

2. Well said and I agree with you!!! n/t

[hedgehog]

3. Shouldn't that be lurk, not troll?

[Matariki]

5. The way they treat their base sometimes, I'm not so sure.

but yeah, probably.

[Woody Woodpecker]

7. I told [email protected]

that unless they start removing third way Democrats or "New" Democrats out of leadership positions, I am not donating one cent to the DCCC and will be donating to deserving progressive candidates.

[obliviously]

12. Your a hard man Pecker!

[U4ikLefty]

91. lol...nice. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. That's what you told 'em? I hope folks remember your post when the screeching begins about $$$$.

If enough people, like yourself, told them they weren't donating because of xyz, where are these emergency funds supposed to come from when another WI happens? I see these hissyfits on this board all the time. After any perceived disappointment, the inevitable threats of witholding $$$ soon follow.

I think some folks should just get over themselves.

[Matariki]

29. And how do you suggest getting their attention?

When every bit of defeat and bad news seems to be nothing more than a opportunity to ask for money. Because everything is an 'emergency', every election is 'the most important ever', and very little changes.

If it seemed like they were actually *doing* something about these election related problems, problems that have been getting worse over the years not better, then I would concede that this anger is 'screeching' and 'hissyfitting'.

I want to hear real plans & see real action FROM CONGRESS for campaign finance reform, for dealing with Citizens United, dealing with the problems of un-transparent vote counting, bullshit grind-to-a-halt legislation when the Dems have the majority. Until that time it increasingly seems like a sucker's game.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Take to the streets if you're unhappy. Occupy, for a time, seemed it was a possible answer. But...

then the Ron Paul & other unsavory forces took that over. What the "disillusioned" progressive community fails to do is offer up favorable alternatives to what the masses want. If the rank-n-file of the Democratic Party are satisfied with our Democrats, then the minority voices have few options, other than to attempt to sandbag the party from within.

We heard this same noise in 2000, when Al Gore (of all people) wasn't pure enough, and we wound up with Bush II as a result. Gee, I wonder how many wars we could've prevented had some people gotten over themselves, and supported Al Gore? Of course, his running mate was an asshole, but Gore was a healthy and relatively young man who would have lead the country for two terms, possibly building on the successes of the Clinton administration.

I can't advise people as to what to do with their own money, but I'm trying to keep track of those who have announced they won't support the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc., just in case I need to remind them that they since they didn't invest, they don't get a say in where other people's money is spent. Is that reasonable?

[Dragonfli]

84. Ron Paul has taken over occupy?

Really? Prove it!

All your statement deserves in this regard is

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. I saw the signs, and drew my own conclusions. Much like the tinfoil theories about the....

administration monitoring/infiltrating a nearly defunct movement. Hey, we've all got our "theories", doncha know?

[Dragonfli]

87. You will have to excuse my lack of political hack training, but is that hack speak for "you pulled

it out of your ass" just to discredit the occupiers?

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. I didn't "discredit the occupiers". They didn't need my help.

[Dragonfli]

90. If one supports the 1% that would be the inevitable reaction, we are sorry for the inconvenience

The 1% have enough "to their credit" and benefit, some must speak for the rest of us.

I think it is time to ignore your conservative complaints and barely feigned disdain for your "lessers"

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. Have at it. See ya! By the way, I have no special affinity for the 1%, but I don't much care for..

extremist anarchist wannabe's either. The combination of Ron Paul signs, the disrespecting & booing of John Lewis, who is a civil rights pioneer, and all the black helicopter shit that has come since, I don't see the bright future I once saw for Occupy. And it's a damned shame too, because they were responsible for changing the dialogue from the deficit to inequity. And then it all went to shit.

[U4ikLefty]

94. Typical smear of Occupy

We don"t judge our movement by your opinions.

[Bluenorthwest]

111. Dig that poster's description of Bernie Sanders...

"Unlike Bernie Sanders, he doesn't do angry, vein popping, spittle laced, red meat politicking, and that's okay."
Angry, vein popping spittle laced. Bernie. The hyperbolic rhetoric of destruction knows no bounds in some strange circles....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=761678&mesg_id=761696

[Tarheel_Dem]

126. That's wonderful.

[LiberalLovinLug]

154. Occupy has only begun

You want to jump off now before its even hardly started? Because you saw a few clips of anarchists or bad behaviour in the MSM coverage which is their mandate (to discredit Occupy)

I'm sure there were isolated incidences during the Civil Rights movement that right wing papers down South highlighted. The FBI was working hard under COINTELPRO in planting anti-King stories in newspapers... I wonder how long you'd have hung in there back then.

[northoftheborder]

128. I have told the national Dem groups the same. Also, the same message goes to the prominent .... ....

.... senators and reps that raise large sums which they use to support the Party & other candidates, & how do I know who they support. I only contribute my small amounts directly to individual campaigns that are Progressive.

[wryter2000]

138. That's pretty much what I told them

Nice lady on the phone. I was firm that I donate to individual candidates I like. I told her I didn't care to give money to "blue dog" democrats. I wished her a nice day, and we hung up.

[DCKit]

8. Don't look at me, I'm too old to be "the person of interest" in their debacles.

But if I lost fifty pounds, it might be another story. Then again, that would involve fucking Republicans.....

[HiPointDem]

9. kr.

[april]

13. I for one am sick and tired of the do nothing congress!

So is it all about money or ...democracy?

[rfranklin]

20. This is Democratic Underground...not anarchists central...why don't you go away?

You are obviously in the wrong place.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Perhaps you should refamiliarize yourself with the TOS you agreed to? Otherwise, why post here?

I think the rules are pretty clear, don't you? Sounds as if you've veered off into some 3rd party and/or suppression crapola that doesn't fall within the TOS.

".....when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."

".....Having said all that, please be aware that the DU Terms of Service are pretty strict, and we don't cut a great deal of slack to people who violate them. If you are here to advocate on behalf of Mitt Romney or some lost-cause third-party spoiler, you will be banned. We're unlikely to give you a warning first because -- let's face it -- if you are supporting someone other than Barack Obama you are on the wrong website. We don't care if you live in the bluest blue state, or the reddest red state -- President Obama is our candidate."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=1399

[PufPuf23]

18. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP! = Washington Generals

and the GOPtrotters always win.

American politics reminds me of professional wrestling.

[Dragonfli]

53. exactly, it is a game with a predetermined outcome and we have been fools for falling for it

I refuse to buy it anymore, when half of the Republican team came over as blue dogs during all of the Republican purges and took over our party as an annex to the Republicans with this song and dance to keep us fooled.



Only an idiot would continue to believe the Washington Generals have any intention of winning anything other than their own paychecks and/or bribes.

[jerseyjack]

26. Debbie says this is a dry run for November.

Does that mean you and Obama are gonna sit it out?

[Matariki]

31. huh?

[Fuddnik]

61. I think she really said, "A dry rub".

And our asses are cooked.

[gkhouston]

76. More like dry heaves.

The last time I felt this sick, I was barely pregnant and afraid I was miscarrying.

[WillyT]

27. HUGE K & R !!!

[Cleita]

41. Truer words were never spoken.

You rock!

[LittleGirl]

44. I delete them especially today

Still ticked off about that WI loss. Unbelievable!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

46. The Democratic Party needs to march in step

The Dem Party is too broad and disorganized. Too many different ideas, not following the party line. Not disciplined enough. Congress does its own thing. If you read the DNC web page and see the issues, Congress votes against these sometimes.

We don't need to be a watered down Republican party. We need to have a defined manifesto. We need to shake off the influence of big corps. Obama has actually tried to do the things he said he would do but it has been Congress which has stalled any progress.

[geek tragedy]

47. They couldn't overrule Citizens United.

You need a constitutional amendment for that.

[creeksneakers2]

83. Deleted post

[Oilwellian]

48. Well said

K&R

[JNelson6563]

50. lolz

Yes, oh I am sure they read DU. lolz

Let me tell you my dear, they probably don't. DU is a flood of people who have never been politically active in their lives. Dem leadership is busy right now with an election year (yes, there are election coming even though WI is over!1!) and we are all busy out here.

The more I am involved in politics the less I read DU. When I was in "leadership" I really came to realize how terribly uninformed DUers often are and I rarely read here as I was very busy trying to make things happen. there is no time to come and read the opinions of political novices on-line and even less incentive.

If you took the time and made the effort you would know that real life politics are very, very different from internet forum politics. The endless bluster of the mighty internet warriors never weigh into 90% of the political races in this country.

I often marvel at posts like this and what they reveal about not only the OP but others as well.

Julie--trying not to laugh

[laundry_queen]

95. LOLZ "my dear"

Paraphrased your post reads like, "Du sucks....I'm better than you....I was a REAL Dem...mememe....Duers are dumb...no one IMPORTANT reads DU ('cept me I MAKE things happen)...mememe...y'all sit on your 'puters doing nothing, never participating politically...Du sucks, internets sucks, I rock."



BTW since some Dems have actually posted here, I'm guessing a few more probably lurk.

But, no, congrats - real nice DU dig. Bravo.

[Javaman]

104. I think you win the award for "the most condescending post ever".

way to go!

kind of proves the OP's point.

[myrna minx]

109. Wow - this is rather insulting to our community.

Thanks for stopping by to sneer at the unwashed masses of DU. Enjoy your lofty prominence and condescension.

[Kurovski]

144. WELL!!

I can assure all that she shan't be welcome at next season's cotillion. There is a steep price to pay for those who are so vastly improved from the average and permissibly valuable deb.

[myrna minx]

161. Oh dear. We wouldn't want a repeat of last year's unpleasantness.

Portia Rothschild's favorite tiara is forever misshaped since she and Miss Wellington fought their way onto the Shetland pony ice sculpture and subsequently rolling onto the 7 tiered "festival of birds" cake. Ladies. Ladies. There's enough Tab Hunter for everyone.

Hello dear. It's wonderful to see you.

[99Forever]

114. Thanks for the buttload of...

... condescending claptrap. Now, off with you to do some "reel politikin" while us mere stooooopid regular folk marvel at your magnificence.

[October]

122. Yet the politicians and those involved keep getting it all wrong... /nt

[Marr]

125. Something tells me you were a ground level nobody,

who shook a Senator's hand once or twice and now feels like a political insider.

Like a McDonald's manager trying to throw his authority around. "Let's not forget who's wearing the RED paper hat here!"

You don't know what people here have done, or still do. I've volunteered plenty myself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

129. LOL. Thanks.

[JNelson6563]

134. I've only done state level stuff, for the most part.

And yet I realize there is a need for consensus. I know it is hard to get everyone on board to work in tandem to achieve a common goal. Compromise is on the menu every single day. Such efforts as these draw only scorn and disdain from many a DUer. I always find that pretty telling.

I realize there are activists on DU, I am personal friends with some of them. Sadly though way too many posts here are by people with little or no clue as to how it all works.

And you can always tell how much someone has invested in an effort by how quickly they are willing to throw over their support at every turn. I remember when I first got involved in politics. Worked so hard, really did all I could along with many others. We took losses and scored occasional wins. The losses hit or if some Dem somewhere in the world did something wrong we certainly weren't about to completely negate our efforts. Some jerk in DC from-bob-knows-what-state did something or said something wrong, watch the many DUers issuing their threats. If this isn't addressed exactly as I want it I am done with the Dems!1!

Yeah, when you see this nonsense all the time you realize you are reading words from people with little to no skin in the game.

Back to the topic of big time players reading DU, take a good look here. Do you really think there is information here that they can't access otherwise? Seriously?

And I am sure you don't think our leadership would benefit from reading all the IF only Obama went to Wisconsin!1! posts? Yeah, if they read that stuff they'd definitely be inspired by such wisdom and insight. Or perhaps the brilliant, insightful Obama's the same as Bush brigade posts would show them that this place is nothing but a powerhouse of political genuis.

I've had the good fortune to serve the Democratic cause in a state level leadership position that I was elected to in a 14 county district (ever run a 14 county race? Challenging stuff). I have enjoyed working with both of our Senators, our Gov before Snyder the fascist got in, loved working with our state House leadership (one of THE most brilliant people I ever met, Dianne Byrum), even did an event for Elizabeth Edwards when she came to my part of the world It was great fun. Really enjoyed meeting her. I feel fortunate to have been able to do these things and more, as in very lucky~~certainly not necessarily deserving or entitled to.

In fact, when I worked with the Pres. advance team in 04 and sort of dropped some of DU's uber-negative terminology it became apparent to me very quickly, that wasn't how they played it out there in reality. It was actually during that ridiculously busy political year that I really learned how very different the real political world and the world of DU are.

With all of that said, DU can be a very informative place for news and such for us civilians and gawd knows I find a lot of the humor here to be absolutely priceless. If I were in the big leagues (federal level) I wouldn't need it for news and wouldn't have time for the rest. When I was in the minor leagues (state level) I found DU to be an often discouraging place.

I realize you probably weren't really looking for anything in response from me but there it is. Some background as to how I came to see DU as I do. Hard to believe there are people who think DU is actually some big presence out in the world, just because it is so in their world. For some inexplicable reason I find that rather annoying.

Julie

[turtlerescue1]

142. wow, i feel so insignificant, will you still allow my vote to count?

[JNelson6563]

143. Ok, whatever.

If you feel insignificant it's not likely due to me. At least I should hope comments from an anonymous poster on an obscure internet forum would not have such an effect.

It would certainly say more about you than me.

Julie

[turtlerescue1]

151. LIkely before your birth

there was no choice but to try and prevent Ronny from once more being King in the fair state of Calafia:

No one was able to keep the headquarters open, I had the time. Day after long day, and then we got in this tremendous number of flyers/mailers for the candidate for State School Super. Decided one day there had to be something I could do with all of them.

Part of our county included a very very biased and prejudice area, and turnout was usually nothing to be thrilled with. Took a few afternoons and walked a few precincts, flyering each house about voter reg. BACK then it was three pages in triplicate and a large pain. Got about 55-60 cards back, had some kind of record that year for voter reg.s

The candidate was Wilson Riles, and to my complete astonishment, that precinct in the middle of all its racial hatred carried Mr. Riles. Taught me more about politics than anything has since that time.

My POINT is Julie, EVERY voter and EVERY vote counts. My remark was to urge you to stop and consider how your post feels to us regular folks. DU may not be some stellar place in your estimation, but could it be at least worthy of respect?

Oh yeah, my fine work to register voters, landed me working at an Election Board. May your efforts provide the same "reward".

[JNelson6563]

156. I see.

So if I pretend to believe that DU is a place where people in power come for guidance, I will then be showing proper respect to the venerable DU?

It's an obscure forum of anonymous posters~many who have no clue about politics (the real world kind) and, sadly, tend to be the loudest voices here.

I don't know where this "every vote counts!1!" stuff is coming from, whoever said differently? I said DU is hardly the place Dem leadership would come to and this translates into me declaring some votes don't count. All votes carry the same value, all political commentary does not.

I feel as though I'm in a religious debate with fundamentalists. The mental gymnastics are that staggering.

Julie

[turtlerescue1]

159. Every VOICE counts-in spite of Corporations

Sorry to cause distress, the hope was to give every voice credibility, and respect. I respect the work you put forth. STILL in all the voices here, am sure each would like their views to matter in the structure and function. The Rants, at this time and place in this nation, hard not to have a burr underneath that needs venting and out right ranting at times.

I once asked a person how best to force change, he advised "Learn to Whine."

You don't think that making posts here seem insignificant -that it doesn't produce a reaction? I still write my GOP/teaparty era Congressman, yeah am really sure he reads these. hohoho.

At my age there's little chance of mental gymnastics- gee was that a jab??? Even the "in a religious debate with fundamentalists"? It's okay, still if someone would like to feel that the DNC listens, why take that from them?

I'lll try to be more "appropriate", not really hard, but I'll try every time I see your name on a post, okay?

Ayn Rand had a name for us, "human ballast" One branch of it was at the Virginia Colonie before the Mayflower had a passenger list, another branch was waving at the new folks coming ashore. Every war and all the taxes. The other side were the French Hugenots with land grants here at the "new place". Long line of human ballast. One line was ran out of three States for counterfeiting and horse thefts. The one that married into that fine group was refused entry into the Union Army in Iowa, so he bootblacked his hair and with two sons went to Missouri to join, they made him a Major Fifer, likely he had old age shakes so bad.... Look back in laughter JNelson6563, it'll keep you going.

[JNelson6563]

162. I'd rather encourage action than support inaction

But yeah, I suppose if people want to think they are making a difference, a real contribution, by posting on the internet (often completely disregarding/denigrating all the hard work actually being done by actual human beings) who am I to take that illusion from them?

I'll tell you who, I am someone who is a nobody from nowhere who got pissed off and got active. Found a lot of like minded souls to work with and we made a big difference in a huge part of my state. Just regular people who had to learn as we went but learn we did! Some of the people I was fortunate enough to be able to help built such a great organization their (relatively useless) local party (which inspired the founding of this new org.) now pretty much defers to them.

I've seen it happen, I know it can be done. Sadly too many refuse to believe it or perhaps it is too much trouble, I don't know but I have a hard time having a whole lot of respect for those who can plainly see we are in dire straights here that can content themselves with stone throwing from the sidelines.

But oh yes, every opinion deserves equal weight. Those whose world is the internets obviously are in as a good a position to know what's going on than those who are actually there on the ground. At least that is what we are suppose to believe our leadership thinks? Well if you believe they read DU for guidance then yes, that's how you see it.

Uh-huh. Got it.

Julie--done with this

[Kurovski]

147. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

And DU is extremely annoying. DU is a venting device. It's more raw than the real world. When we're out there working, we mind Mr. and Ms. Manners. However, It has its place as a subject for study.

And as an aside, "Genius" is the one of the funniest words to misspell.

[JNelson6563]

155. lolz

Yes it is! Damn I need to proofread my posts!

And you make valid points. Du is many things, some good some bad. One thing I think DU is not is a place where power players come to look for guidance.

Julie

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Come out for pot legalization and ending the drug war.

Coopt the libertarian wing of the GOP and energize the youth in one swift stroke.

[MoonRiver]

55. The sad thing is, we on DU have been posting this same shit since presidential election theft 2000.

NOTHING has changed since then. NOTHING.

[Kurovski]

149. I understand how it can feel that way, but things are changing.

And even though things move at a glacial pace, even I'm impressed with the changing attitudes say, toward marriage equality, in no small part due to the President just saying he's for it. OUT LOUD.

We have the tiny beginnings of a healthcare system that may one day join the rest of the industrialized world in its ability to reduce human suffering...if we work for it. more People begin to see the level of lying in our government and media, and realize there is more to the story.

It all moves at a glacial pace.

[zeemike]

58. You need to understand the concept of good cop bad cop.

The good cop is your friend...he wants to help you...talks nice to you.
The bad cop threatens you even wants to bet the crap out of you...he is always nasty to you.
But what you don't understand is that they are both working toward the same end.
It is a game they play with our heads and it always seems to work...because people want to believe that they have someone they can talk to and will look out after them...
George Carlin had it right...it's a big fucking club and we are not in it.

We are the board they play the game on.

[danbeee46]

59. Disappointed

I am a registered Dem and will certainly vote for Obama in November. However, like so many on this board, I am disgusted with the party in general. I will not contribute one cent to the party until they have some backbone; until they unequivocally reject the destruction of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; until they reject Pelosi's newly found support for Simpson/Bowles; until Obama learns how to negotiate with the GOP and not give in before the bargaining begins. Instead, I will contribute my hard-earned money to individual Dem candidates who exhibit the qualities and positions I value.

And, as I said, I will vote for Obama. The best reason for doing so (apart from Romney being a disaster) is the fact that one or more Supreme Court justices will probably retire during the next four years. Allowing Romney/McConnell/Boehner to make the appointments would set this country back for generations.

[treestar]

60. They did do what they could with those two years

Deal with reality.

[spanone]

65. congress can overrule the supreme court?

[valerief]

67. Uh, they had non-stop filibustering for two years. nt

[jillan]

69. I want to hear solutions on how we are going to counter the Koch Bros, etc.

[texshelters]

70. If Democrats don't fight for real campaign finance reform

then I won't fight for them. Until the way campaigns are financed changes, they will continue to lose and the rest of America along with them. The Republican are bad for everyone but the moneyed elites.

Democrats can whine all they want about loosing in Wisconsin, but they are partly to blame for this campaign finance mess.

PTxS

[Maineman]

71. I want to hear what you plan on doing about CAMPAIGN FINANCE and CITIZEN'S UNITED.

I want to hear what you plan on doing about CAMPAIGN FINANCE and CITIZEN'S UNITED.

I want to hear what you plan on doing about CAMPAIGN FINANCE and CITIZEN'S UNITED.

I want to hear what you plan on doing about CAMPAIGN FINANCE and CITIZEN'S UNITED.

I want to hear what you plan on doing about CAMPAIGN FINANCE and CITIZEN'S UNITED.

I have no choice but to become a single issue voter, and donor.
We have no choice but to become single issue voters, and donors.

So you might as well stop calling for money.

[Dustlawyer]

127. This is what we all need to focus on! Occupy, Dem's, Progressives etc. all need to repeat

This over and over. It has to be our response to everything. The answer to any issue that is raised should be campaign finance reform. Why have they not started on the Constitutional amendment already? Because they are all complicit. Imagine how much could get done if our politicians did not have to spend all their time sucking up to the money interests. What if they were only beholden to us, the voters? I ask that all DU'ers start adding "campaign finance reform" to the end of every comment made here. We do need unity. We may have valid disagreements on the other issues of the day, but they are meaningless w/o true campaign finance reform. CFR,CFR CFR CFR CFR CFR! Who is with me?

[Marr]

77. The thing is, the Dems' corporate wing might be the next big thing for corporate America.

The Republicans have gone so insane that they've proven willing to destroy the economy to gain power for themselves. If I were a billionaire, the Third Wayers might even be starting to look more appealing than the GOP right now.

It's going to be interesting to see how things shake out in the country over the long haul. If things continue on the path they're on now, it seems quite possible that the GOP will end up as a sort of extremist third party, the Democrats the establishment/ big business party, and, I assume, some other group filling the gap on the left that was so anxiously abandoned by the Democrats.

[Dragonfli]

86. We have been watching that happen since at least the early nineties

Some of us have even tried to point out that the third way annex to the tent was always nothing more than a slug larvae emplanted and expected to grow into the "new GOP" leadership of the now Corporate Democratic party, The republicans have clearly gestated into a new form of fascist Bircher.

As to what will fill the vacuum completely left open now that would function as a party of the people, I don't see one available to us.

So although I agree entirely with your premise, I do so with a very serious concern that there will be nothing at all to replace the Democrats in this new shall we call it "corporatocrasy of superpac competetors."

[Marr]

124. Well, you may be right.

It's been going on overtly since the Clinton era, but it's really coming to head recently with the economy in the dumps for such a long time. It may be that nothing fills the void on the left anytime soon, and we just chug along in this Corporate Democrat vs. Lunatic Right mode for decades.

My hope is that that's not the case. The OWS movement gives me a degree of optimism that the public is at least capable of deciding it's had enough.

[Fearless]

82. Agreed. And the excuses are wearing very thin. n/t

[Andrew67]

97. HEY DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP! I know you troll this place. Listen up.

[IMG][/IMG]well down

[DLevine]

98. K&R. n/t

[corkhead]

100. +63 Million.

[datasuspect]

102. the only thing i want to know:

is the powder still dry?

[trof]

113. My sentiments exactly. Rec #200

[whathehell]

117. Good on you. I got the same emails and told them essentially the same thing. n/t

[October]

123. "Unsubscribe"

I'm so fed up.

[krawhitham]

132. CITIZEN'S UNITED was decided on January 21, 2010, we had already lost the house

[AndyA]

139. No action by White House on Citizens United?

I just watched a video in the Video Forum, and Cenk of The Young Turks basically said that the White House hasn't done anything about Citizens United, with the exception of President Obama mentioning it in his State of the Union speech.

Two years and nothing else? Is that really true?

I thought the same thing others here thought about that E-mail. Democrats need to do something about Citizens United. They cannot continue to depend on supporters who are already strained to help them compete. They need to do something to get rid of the flood of corporate/foreign money flowing in.

[bvar22]

150. They have also done NOTHING about Election Security and Voter Access.

They RAN from ACORN as fast as their self-absorbed little feet would carry them.
They couldn't turn their backs on ACORN fast enough.

Over 92% of the American People support Transparent, Verifiable Elections,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445
and, yet, not a WORD from our Democratic party leadership about the problems with privately owned easily hackable, BBV Voting Machines programed with "secret" code.
Not. A. Fucking. WORD.
In fact, there are MORE of these "secret" machines being used to record our votes NOW
than when the Democratic Party took the Majorities in BOTH houses in 2006.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Matariki]

158. +1

done nothing but treat concerns over that issue as paranoia.

[Myrina]

141. Because they don't want the money to DO shit ...

... they just want the money.

[harun]

146. I used to get all those emails until they extended the B*sh tax cuts

Opted out of them all after that.

[L. Coyote]

153. ROFLMAO. Yeah, and the Pope is watching too!

They got better things to do.

[fascisthunter]

157. "better".... so far it ain't looking so good

[Kurovski]

160. Sure, That 1% is pretty high maintenance.