The DLC, using Koch funds, moved them a couple of decades ago. Which turned liberals into "Marxists". (Who'd ever thought THAT would be how liberals got described on DU? I should probably alert.)
But more to your larger, non-hyperbolic, point, if "getting something done" with a republican congress is the goal, then we'd all have voted for Romney last time. Is it so hard to understand that people here don't want a free trading hawk that doesn't want to consider single payer?
If you think candidates get elected based upon the voter's judgment about their ability to actually accomplish what they are promising, you haven't been paying attention. They vote based upon strange concerns, among them things like "likeability" or "would I entrust my kids to them" or "would I drink a beer with them?". You think Reagan got elected because of his deep grasp of issues? You think "Yes I can" was a deep piece of policy objective? How many things that Obama suggested during the campaign did he ultimately "evolve" on after the oath of office?
We have before us an almost unelectable GOP candidate. If there was ever a time to elect a "far left" candidate, the chance is now. We'll never have a better chance. How would he work with a democratic congress? By starting far left and letting the DEMOCRATS pull him right, instead of what we've seen from the guy that wanted to "reach across the aisle" and had the GOP and the blue dogs pulling him from the center to the right.
It is a bit strange to see, on DU people arguing AGAINST progressive policies. Not just that they are unachievable, but that they shouldn't be tried, and in fact are some sort of "Marxist/fevered dream".
= new reply since forum marked as read
