I'm sorry but the Democratic Party is not doing its job.

[kentuck]

Forty percent of Americans in a new poll believe they will never be in the middle class. The number of people on foodstamps has doubled since 2008. Ninety-five percent of all wealth created since the Great Recession has gone to the top 1%. Our official unemployment rate is at 7.3%, the lowest in 5 years. And the real unemployment is much higher.

The Party is unable to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for needed programs. They are unable to raise the minimum wage to a point where people can live on it. Not save and thrive but survive.

Wars that should have been stopped 5 years ago are still going on. The Party should ask for a 50% cut in the Defense budget but they are politically scared they will lose their jobs.

They continue to create hardships for the working people of this country with their insane trade agreements. They have no passion for a fight. Republicans can cut foodstamps, flu shots, meals for old people, and close schools across the nation, and no one can do nothing.

There is too much willingness to agree with those would shut down our government and too little willingness to fight. This has to change and soon. Dare those bastards to shut down our government!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. "History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[Harmony Blue]

2. The irony is that the Republicans

are acting like a true opposition party while the Democrats are acting like they are powerless. This baffles everyone frankly.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. I think it's deception, not irony.

"Hey, buddy! My partner kind of goes nuts sometimes and just beats the ever-loving hell out of suspects. Do yourself a favor and give him what he wants, because frankly I can't protect you."

Same thing going on in DC.

They're not on our side.

And we don't have representation at all.

[Harmony Blue]

9. I really hope it isn't that way

but a lot of evidence does point towards that direction.

[sendero]

26. That is exactly what is happening.

.. and it could not be more obvious.

[awoke_in_2003]

71. Sad but true. nt

[Enthusiast]

123. It is certainly deception.

It's a highly organized game of deception. No question about it. That is why things don't change to favor our position.

[arcane1]

102. The Dems behaved that way when they had a majority in the House, too.

In fact, the two parties ALWAYS behave in those ways, no matter who has power.

[Enthusiast]

124. "acting like"

[Junkdrawer]

3. The Democratic Party is bringing home the bacon....

for the Democratic Party.

What do YOU think is its job?

[leveymg]

203. . . . for those who OWN the Democratic Party. That's its job.

We don't own it, but it tries to own us, or at least the meager public space we have on this board and a few other places like DU.

The aparachiks and Third Wayers try very hard to own this place. And, they've managed to grab parts of it.

[leftstreet]

4. Don't be sorry, they're not

DURec

[woo me with science]

5. ...

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

White House: No Subsidies for Union Health Plans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014594512

War Criminal Henry Kissinger Top Speaker At State Department Conference
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023660916

Kerry is meeting with Kissinger today for advice on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023646267

Pentagon says "boots on the ground" may be needed in Syria after all
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023670821

The USDA’s Reckless Plan to Decrease Food Safety
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023670859

The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts - HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029

Larry Summers Gets 'Full-Throated Defense' From Obama In Capitol Hill Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post1

This is a complete list of Wall Street CEOs prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3653154

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719

[bvar22]

37. That is a depressing list.

We are really screwed.



[font size=5]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=5]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[Enthusiast]

126. The greatest mandate in history.

How could a good and decent man ignore such an outcry? The answer is an ugly one.

[red dog 1]

59. Muchas gracias for the great links

You've summed the problem up pretty well.

[dorkzilla]

85. Wow...that's fucking depressing...n/t

[Doctor_J]

101. Here's a brand spanking new one for the list

White House: No Subsidies For Union Health Plans

[woo me with science]

215. Thank you. nt

[indepat]

105. The cumulative drip-drip-drip of right-wing policies and actions is

fastly unraveling the fabric of American society. Every day we read of numerous right-wing initiatives, but rarely read of a liberal or progressive initiative in foreign affairs or fiscal/tax arenas.

[Festivito]

131. Also, Dems put in Repub choice for FBI, CIA, etc.

Clinton did so as well, as a gesture of bipartisanship. There is no such gesture in return when a Republican becomes president.

[KoKo]

223. Thanks "Woo" for the updated list...So much to be concerned about going forward.

The TPP and the EURO DEAL...are the next huge battle.

[truedelphi]

6. Like Kucinich told Kashkari, Paulson's aide -

"We know you are working hard; it' s just we're not sure we like who you are working for."

[RC]

8. +10

That Donkey really should be facing the other direction.

[obxhead]

13. facing the other direction and moved to the right.

It should actually place its head right up that elephants ass.

[RC]

25. It sure seems that way, doesn't it?

When are we going to wake up to what they are doing to us, US?

[Enthusiast]

128. LOL

[bvar22]

49. Like this?

Feel Free!

[RC]

56. Saved me the trouble.

I almost missed the corrected Donkey.

[bvar22]

65. Quick and Dirty.

But it works for me!
And the TRUTH is that the Donkey is headed further to The Political Right every day.
THAT is the scary part.

At least in the 60s and 70s we were heading in the right direction,
AND moving the ball.
NOW, it is like a continual backslide,
and I am ashamed of the World and the state of the "Working Class Party"
we are leaving to our youth.
They will have to fight all the old LABOR, Worker's Rights, Human Rights, and Consumer Rights battles that our Fathers and Grandfathers fought not so long ago.

[CrispyQ]

193. I would make the background color on "THIS SPACE AVAILABLE" green.

[Enthusiast]

127. Kucinich!

Oh, what could have been.

[truedelphi]

10. Dalai Lama has a great quote about not ever giving up:

"If you think you re too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito."

[woo me with science]

11. I really wish you would take out the "I'm sorry" in the title.

This is something that all of us need to be saying loudly and clearly and vehemently.

Nothing is going to change until we make it change.

[Doctor_J]

104. On the contrary we should all be sorry.

[totodeinhere]

12. Yet our country is exceptional don't you know. n/t

[DissidentVoice]

122. Exceptional in so many wrong ways...

The only industrialised, supposedly civilised, nation without universal health care (frankly, the ACA is not universal health care).

Employment-at-will is the law of the land in virtually every state...you can be fired for any or no reason.

Corporations are people too!

The outdated, anachronistic, aristocratic Electoral College.

Elections for sale to the highest bidder.

Sorry if that sounds "unpatriotic." As a kid, I was raised to love my country and I served it in the Air National Guard.

But more and more I find myself asking the Michael Moore question - "Dude, where's my country?!"

[Enthusiast]

129. The Fascists are going to correct that little health care disparity

by taking universal health care away from the Australians, Canadians and Europeans.

[DissidentVoice]

199. I highly doubt that

Stephen Harper in Canada, David Cameron in the UK, John Key in New Zealand and the just-elected Tony Abbott in Australia all know that if they were to try something like that, they would be out on their arse before they could even think about it.

The vote of no confidence...it's a good thing.

[starroute]

14. I think the Democrats are in denial about how bad the GOP has gotten

The GOP no longer believes in democracy. All they care about is maintaining themselves in power. When they have a majority, they abuse it to ram through unpopular legislation. When they are in the minority, they use sabotage and obstructionism to forestall what is good for the majority of citizens. They would rather twist the laws and twist the courts than maintain a functioning system. They would rather see our infrastructure decay than have the government get credit for fixing it.

If there's a word for this, I don't know what it is. It isn't fascism, because fascists at least made the trains run on time. It isn't anarchism because anarchists are generally on the side of the poor and believe strongly in mutual aid. Anarcho-fascism maybe????

But whatever you call it, the Democrats are in flat-out, codependency-style denial that it is happening. They act as though we still have a functioning democracy with two parties that both play by the rules and are prepared to act together on important issues. And this makes them suckers.

It isn't just that the Democrats aren't able to fight back. It's that they're willfully blind to the fact that they're in a war.

[Maedhros]

19. The term you're looking for is "Banana Republic" [n/t]

[Enthusiast]

130. That might be it....nt

[kentuck]

20. More and more, Harry Reid looks like the biggest dumbass of all...

I have no idea what he was thinking??

[awoke_in_2003]

72. He isn't stupid he's complicit. nt

[Blanks]

34. I disagree.

The republicans are the opposition party. By design - to be conservative is to 'not change', and some level of not changing keeps the government in check by not allowing change (or at least requiring a lot of debate before change). We need the republicans because they are the ones who slow things down and make us evaluate the question: just because the majority of people want something - it still may not be in our long term best interest.

However, we need them to be in the minority. That's where the problem is. This country has always performed at its best when we've had a democratic controlled congress (even under republican presidents).

Of course we are going to have problems when the 'opposition party' is in control of the body where government spending originates.

Remember in 2009 when we had 'cash for clunkers', 'Dodd-Frank' & a taste of health care reform? It isn't the democrats that are the problem, it's the voters.

We need to get democrats back in control of the House of Representatives - even the republicans would be happier.

[kentuck]

35. I would agree that Democrats need to be in control of the House whenever...

..our country needs fixed and changes need to be made. The worst thing for the people of the country is to have Repubs in charge during those critical times.

[Blanks]

68. There's always something that needs fixed...

The republicans should never be in charge of congress. The country does ok when we have a republican president - as long as congress is controlled by democrats.

They are the opposition party - they only oppose. Look at how vigorously opposed they are to Obamacare.

[bvar22]

55. The Democratic Party is in denial about how bad the Democratic Party has gotten..

...as they have chased the Republican Party off the far right end of the Political Spectrum.

I joined the Democratic Party that sounded like THIS:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

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

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

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

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

*The right of every family to a decent home;

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

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

*The right to a good education.

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

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
---FDR, 1944, SOTU

Pleas note that FDR specified the above values as Basic Human Rights to be protected and administered by our Government OF the People,
and NOT as Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by "private" Corporations.


How long has it BEEN since you have heard ANYTHING like that from our Party leadership?
Truth IS... we can't do anything about the Republican Party.
They are OWNED by the RICH.
But the Democratic Party should belong to US... Working Class America,
and we DAMN WELL SHOULD be able to so something about the pathetic state of our OWN DAMNED Party!!!



[font color=firebrick][center]"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 [/font][/center] [center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[DissidentVoice]

82. FDR was spot on!

My grandfather, who was put to work doing honest work (he built bridges) through the WPA (he'd previously been running bathtub gin), had a large portrait of FDR in his living room. He then went to work for Chrysler where he remained (a staunch UAW member and eventually Union Steward) almost until his death in 1963.

FDR would shit himself over what calls itself the Democratic Party today.

[Doctor_J]

100. I don't know. that's probably wishful thinking

they can't be that naive or incompetent. Occum's Razor says they're in on it.

[Phlem]

117. I'll see that and raise you

that the democrats are in perfect sync with the republican party. Confusion and tensions when dealing with social and public policy, ALL IN FOR WAR!!

-p

[starroute]

164. The trouble is that it's not perfect sync

It's more of a "best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity" kind of situation.

The Republicans are absolutely committed to their goals, unswervable by outside pressure, willing like fools or crooks in the pursuit of their agenda. The Democrats are like a feather in the wind, blown this way and that by the slightest doubt or fear that someone might call them names.

There's also Obama's repeatedly bending over backwards in the search for a grand compromise with a GOP that has absolutely no interest in compromise.

The only conclusion I can reach is that the Republicans know we no longer have a functioning democracy and are prepared to exploit that for everything it's worth, while the Democrats see the failure of democracy as a nightmare figure that they can keep from catching up with them by pretending it doesn't exist.

If the Democrats admitted democracy in the US has been a failure, either it would render their lives meaningless or -- even worse -- they would have to step up and do something about it. While the Republicans haven't ever been all that sold on democracy and are becoming even less so as the specter of minority and youth voters threatens to deprive them of power.

[DissidentVoice]

205. Actually, it IS fascism...

Check out the quote I use for my footer from Benito Mussolini.

[hibbing]

15. "Great Recession"

Hey,
I always wonder why it is not labeled the "Bush Recession", god knows if it was a Democrat in office it would have that president's name tied to it.

Peace

[kentuck]

21. good point.

Thanks.

[RC]

61. It seems to we tried, but the Republicans insisted on calling it the Obama recession.

So we gave up and compromised once again, so now it is known as the Great recession. As long as Obama wasn't saddled with the name, things were just fine with some people.

[mick063]

98. Bill Clinton laid the groundwork by signing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

The recession happened under Bush and he wholeheartedly supported and reinforced the implementation of Gramm–Leach–Bliley, but there is a time lag between passing of the root cause legislation and the realization of true effect.

Absolute truth here. It was a "third way" economic agenda in cooperation with GOP Congressional leaders that lead to the great recession. A recession caused because financial institutions were able to consolidate financial services, acquire/absorb previously unrelated financial institutions, and become "too big to fail". The government was forced to bail them out or risk a great depression. It wasn't just the fact that bad home loans were regularly approved. It was the fact that hedge fund managers bought insurance from institutions such as AIG that had inadequate capital to pay off the derivative "bets" for a multitude of corrupt home loans which would inevitably, collectively fail.

Bill Clinton signed this into law. Bush just happened to be President when the repercussions were fully realized.

Hence....it is not the "Bush recession". It is actually the "Gramm–Leach–Bliley-Clinton" Recession. Kinder terms (to the Democratic Party) would be the "Great Recession".

[Enthusiast]

134. TPTB used the artificial smokescreen of right wing

blather and attacks (impeachment) on Clinton to enact a right wing/third way legislative agenda. We are watching a similar game in play right now(TPP).

I told my buds that Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the Eronization of America. It was. It amounted to a massive betrayal, I call it treason. And anyone that would nominate Larry Summers is thoroughly complicit.

[Festivito]

141. That's the untrue right wing crapola.

That bill was veto proof. Had he signed it or not it would have gone into effect.

Your paragraphs of bluster only hide that Republicans supported and started this.

[Bohunk68]

155. Veto-proof.

So was DADT, DOMA and NAFTA. It would seem that you are saying that if a bill is veto-proof, don't veto it and show that you have courage of conviction. Clinton didn't even have the courage to admit getting a BJ. Go along to get along. humph

[Festivito]

163. A veto would have had two bad consequences.

It would make the president look weak. Remember this is before Bush took down the stature of the presidency. It would make Clinton look as though he doesn't have bipartisan skill. The press would have been all over his failure. That's a big cost when you are a lame duck president.

Second, he would have less time to watch that particular bill in action.

[bvar22]

190. I disagree.

Vetoing the bill would have made Clinton look STRONG
by STANDING for Democratic party Values.

Paul Wellstone voted NO on the IWR against ALL the advice from the party Pundits and Talking Heads on TV.
They said it would cost him the 2002 election.

Funny thing, Wellstone surged ahead in the polls because Americans respect & honor people who STAND by their Convictions.

Plus, you are ignoring the fact that Clinton signed the bill with relish and celebration. The conservative (DLC) Wing of the Democratic Party LOVE De-Regulation and so called "Free Markets".


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Festivito]

208. No. It is the postings ignoring that ALL Republicans and SOME Democrats supported it.

Over and over and over again in posts, the blame is carefully put on Bill Clinton as though he alone is responsible. The omission that it was Republicans who supported it in their entirety, that Dems were mixed in support, and that Bill Clinton had only a chance at a pyrrhic victory, a far less than useful stance for his final days as president, is meant to support right-wing Republicans -- not Democrats.

It is sadly true that even our left-leaning Democrats appear to be right of center on a large political scale. And that brings us trade deals based on money principles not people principles. But, further eroding of past Democrats while giving Republicans an uplifting pass -- is crapola.

[bvar22]

216. Nope. Lets ask Bill himself.

Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
November 12, 1999


"Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.

Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal."


<more>

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922

Case Closed.

[Festivito]

219. And his self-effacing tacit rhetoric noting limitations proves its all the Democrat's fault -- How?

Limitations that suddenly go away in April of 2004 under the W* Bush administration, six months before the presidential election. Making a boon time for the banks that would then cataclysmically fail in a few years.

But, all you're interested in is that a Democrat signed the bill saying nice things about himself even though his signature given or not would mean no difference. NO DIFFERENCE.

What? He's supposed to rail against himself in his own signing statement? No. He does, within the statement, change tone and notes the limitations that are needed for this bill.

The it is Glass-Steagal and don't look at the limitations being overturned behind the media curtain is RW smokescreen crapola.

I'd like to see Glass-Steagal put back into law, but not as much as I'd like to see the banks returning to having their 10% rule back.

(Sorry it takes so long for me to respond to these things. I work too much -- to afford time to be on DU.)

But, I will not abide this blame the Democrat game.

[bvar22]

221. When the Democrat is at fault,

I will assign the responsibility.
Bill Clinton supported and participated in other NeoLiberal (DLC) avenues of "de-regulation" and "privatization"
WITH The Republicans, including, but not limited to the de-regulation of the Telecoms (1996).

THAT is what earned him the title of "Best Republican President EVER!!!"
(though he has now been bumped back to 2nd Best).

I guess you will now try to tell us he had nothing to do with NAFTA.

[Festivito]

222. .. because I say so. It all sounds imperious.

... "I will assign the responsibility." Yup, you did.

Wrongly of course.

Was Clinton a slightly left of the Republican center politician DINO. Okay, let's say he was. He was still better by far than any Republican.

And that any Democrat is far better than any Republican needs to be said. Unless one of two things I can think:

1. One thinks we've been winning the media and election results.
2. One is paid to be difficult for Democrats in order to continue to be paid to let Republicans win.

That's all I'm seeing here, that none are so blind as those who will not see.

[bvar22]

224. Every Human Being has the right to assign responsibility.

In a Democracy, that is not just a RIGHT,
but a Constitutional Responsibility.
There is nothing "imperious" about to at all.

The Truism that "any Democrat is far better than any Republican"
is just another excuse to excuse the inexcusable.
The Party has turn abruptly to the Conservative Right over the last 20 years Cashing In on that excuse and unearned Brand Loyalty.

[mick063]

191. Please do not lie to us.

Bill Clinton and the Koch funded DLC fully supported this act. This is the third way. This is on the DLC. This is exactly the type of legislation they support.


I suppose a dozen years from now, you will find an excuse for Obama's TPP. In this case, he is urging Congress to "fast track" TPP before Congress or the American people can debate the merits.


Do not deny what the DLC is. Embrace it or abandon it. Do not deceive with it.

[Festivito]

206. 100% Repubs with just enough Dems to make it veto proof.

So, the Dem is then blamed and the Repubs go un-blamed in post after post after post.

I agree there is some deception going on. I just don't find it to be from me.

[mick063]

209. Blaming Republicans is a given. They do not need to be part of the discussion.

They are 100% against the working man. No debate there.

The problem is the Democrats that buy into the bullshit. That is the truest problem.


Yes.......the Democrats are the biggest problem because they are economically complicit and do not offer the historical alternative.

That, my friend, is the biggest problem.

[Festivito]

210. Foolishly ridiculous statement. If voters were informed .. MAYBE! They're NOT!

If MOST voters were informed, I might cut some slack. Most are not informed, so NO!

I get this Glass-Steagal thing from Republicans all over the place. Blaming it on Bill Clinton. When I point to 100% Republicans supported it and only some Democrats, and that it was veto-proof, they question my statistics! They're not talking about Bill being a bad Democrat. THEY WANT TO VOTE REPUBLICAN BECAUSE THEY THINK BILL CLINTON CAUSED THE ECONOMIC DOWNFALL BECAUSE HE SIGNED IT! That it would have passed anyway can barely be processed in their tiny un-exercised brains.

Is it getting through to you that it is NOT A GIVEN?

What was it? 29% of Republicans blamed Obama for the bad response to Katrina, where 28% of them blamed Bush, and most burning of these statistics: 44% WERE UNSURE! Unsure!

We have trolls all over this board and daily lots of removed posters and you want to tell me the blaming of Republicans is a given?

[font size="HUGE"]NO![/font]

[mick063]

211. Sorry

I will not preface every statement on DU with "Republicans suck". It is a given.

You are so caught up in team sport, that you cannot identify betrayal as it slaps you in the face.


President Clinton signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act because he was ideologically aligned with it.

A dozen years from now, you will attempt to convince us that the TPP is the fault of the GOP House. As long as I am around, I will clarify the situation, just as I must clarify the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

I will supply some direct quotes from President Clinton if you continue this attempt to deceive people.

[Festivito]

220. That other response above looks like another name responding as you would.

The answer from me would be similar.

[Enthusiast]

133. Limbaugh was calling it the "Obama Recession" before the inauguration in 2008.

Millions of Republicans are convinced. And they never hear differently.

[treestar]

174. +1

[SmittynMo]

16. All very good points, including the "I'm sorry" comment.

The only problem is what are we going to do? On the bright side, imagine how it would have been if the right was in control.

[Cryptoad]

17. All those things you listed

that have contribute to this economic obyss we find ourselves in , can be shown to be directly related to the policies of the GOP for the last 30 years,,,,, Its the GOP in Congress and the SCOTUS that resist and obstruct any changes that the Democrats try to make to those policies that have raped the Middle Class. Yet you blame it on the Democratic Party,,,,, wake up!

[kentuck]

22. 30 years of incompetence.

That's about it.

[tkmorris]

23. This is just inane

Yes, WE KNOW the Republicans do everything they can to "contribute to this economic obyss we find ourselves in". We get that. What we don't get is why Democrats repeatedly either go along with, or capitulate to, the Republicans on these topics. Well actually we do get it somewhat, though that doesn't make the bleeding stop does it?

How many times does the Obama administration have to appoint foxes to guard the henhouse until you get it? How many refusals to prosecute ANYONE above the level of janitor for the worst economic crisis in recent history? Why in the BLOODY BLUE FUCK is Obama pushing for the TPP? Larry Summers? Are you kidding me?

Republicans suck. I know. OTOH I expect Democrats to oppose them, and fight for those principles we supposedly stand for. I don't expect them to win every time but I damn well expect them to TRY. They don't, they aren't, and I am sick and tired of trying to believe it is just a lack of spine on their part. They aren't weak, too many are just complicit, and it's about time you recognized that. In short, wake up.

[Cryptoad]

28. Governing is

the art of compromise,

I hear your argument a lot as the same that many of the Tea Party make to the GOP.


The cold hard facts are : Unless you control Congress and the SCOTUS your choices are slim between compromise and non-governance.

I do not agree with everything Obama has done but overall I think he has done well with the Obstruction he is faced with by the GOP!

[kentuck]

30. When was the last time the GOP compromised?

That is nothing but an excuse for doing nothing. In fact, that word is not in the Republican's vocabulary.

[Cryptoad]

31. Agreed

considering that,,, Obama has done well !

[kentuck]

32. I was not focusing on the President.

I was talking about the entire Democratic Party, as a whole.

[Cryptoad]

41. Seeing that the White House is

the only thing we control, it hard not to focus on anybody but President. Dems in Congress are just keeping a nose above water!

[Fumesucker]

78. The Democrats hold the Senate and the White House

And could have changed the filibuster rules too but chose not to.

[Cryptoad]

84. Senate rules are not changed that easily ,,,

you face many procedural hurdles trying to do so..... the last time a Senate rule was changed was 1975 and it took the 67 vote to do so. Common sense will tell you that this is by design,,,, if it was easily done all the Rules would be changed by the Majority to stack the deck and the Minority could just go home ,,, there work would be over.....

there are volumes written by Congressional scholars concerning this topic, Learning can be fun.

[Fumesucker]

86. After you made an outright error saying the Dems only hold the White House

You tell me that learning can be fun?

[Cryptoad]

89. You seem to have a problem reading. I did not say what you just said I said

i said the Dems only "control" the White House... The Dems do not control the Senate since it takes 60 votes to control the Senate..... .

[Fumesucker]

95. The Repubs seem to "control" the Senate just fine with less than fifty votes

[Cryptoad]

149. Yep if you have 41 votes in the Seante

you can prevent votes from taking place !

Since the GOP is only interested in not governing ,,,,, 41 votes control the Senate.

[rhett o rick]

115. Let me guess what your point is. If you vote for Republicans, life would be worse, therefore

be happy with the shit you are getting from the Democrats.

You can be happy with the shit the 1% is feeding you, but not me. I am going to hold out for decent health care for our children and repeal of the fucking Patriot Act.

You go ahead and enjoy your "status-fucking-quo".

[Cryptoad]

154. YOu need to study

how government works.......

[rhett o rick]

170. Ahh yes. The "Be Happy with What You Got" Theory.

You are making a wild assumption that I dont know how government works. And you assume that if I learned, then I would be ok with poor health care for our children and bombing middle east countries. You are way wrong on both counts.

If we do things your way we will settle, and settle until we have nothing. Each step of the way down the toilet can be justified by the so-called pragmatists, as "The Best You Can Get" so be happy.

You may be swell with the gradual increase of the water temperature in the pot, but I sure the hell aint. Time to jump out of the fucking pot and kick some 1% ass (metaphorically of course) and if the so-called pragmatists are in the way, then kick their asses also.

There are some very basic things that I want:
Decent health care for all American children.
Decent meals for all American children.
An end to the police state.
A significant reduction of our bloated defense budget.
Investment in our infrastructure.
Nationalize the banks.
Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Now to a so-called pragmatist, I suppose that looks like a pony. They are willing to let some children die of hunger because that's the best we can hope for. I say bullshit. We cant stand by and watch the 1% rob us blind while the so-called pragmatists stand by doing nothing.

[Cryptoad]

177. Ahh yes ,,,, the ole associate FAllacy

nothing can be worst because it is worst. geez

[rusty fender]

120. I am so relieved, then!

Ninety-nine % of us are in the shit-can, but at least Obama is doing well! Yay!

[Enthusiast]

136. Yay!

[grahamhgreen]

111. RW authoritarians do not compromise, they want to be told what to do.

[treestar]

175. You're in an echo chamber

The GOP does compromise. Check out right wing boards. You'll see plenty of the same type of complaining from their far right.

[tkmorris]

42. I didn't list too many specific Dem failures in my post

I could have of course, but I would still be typing it out. I did mention a few though and there's something you failed to notice about them though I specifically chose them for this reason. Every single one of them had exactly jack-all to do with republicans. They were decisions made without any republican input whatsoever.

Furthermore you don't get to say you've "compromised" when your starting position is already too far right to begin with. Remember the health care bill "negotiations"? Remember how the Dems starting position was single-payer? Yeah, me either. How about that sequester? Big compromise there but why on earth were we doing it in the first place? It should never have happened at all; compromising over details isn't scoring any points with me.

This "politics is the art of compromise" nonsense is just a useful foil to placate the Dem base. Don't tell me about Repubs filibustering everything, I KNOW that already. Tell me why Dems don't fight back just as hard when they are the minority party. Better yet, tell me why Reid hasn't changed the filibuster rules in light of the Repub shenanigans over the last several years. He threatens to, over and again, but he never does. You can believe what you want but I know it's because he really never wanted to.

If the Dem leadership were your divorce lawyer you'd end up with custody of the rat that lived in your attic and alimony payments high enough to feed a small third world nation. Compromise my foot.

[Cryptoad]

46. ummm

If the Dem leadership were your divorce lawyer you'd end up with custody of the rat that lived in your attic and alimony payments high enough to feed a small third world nation. Compromise my foot.

if the GOP leadership were your divorce lawyer, you would find yourself as a slave with your partner chained to your ankles......

[bvar22]

90. HEY!!! Jack gave away the family cow,

...but he "compromised" and got a handful of beans.
The GOOD NEWS is that the Beans might be MAGIC!!!
So what a GREAT DEAL!!!!


PT Barnum vastly underestimated the rate at which SUCKERS are born in America.

[blackspade]

125. When one side compromises (Democrats),, ,, , ,, ,,, ,,

and the other (rethugs) does not,,,, ,,,,, ,,,,, it is called unprincipled capitulation.
That is not governance.
The way to respond to obstruction is to make your case strongly to the people and stand by those principles.
Something that the current Democratic leadership is incapable of doing because it serves the interests of their Wall Street owners.

[Enthusiast]

135. The interests of the working class are the only things being compromised.

I grow weary of your bullshit.

[RC]

33. +1000

[font size="5"]Why in the BLOODY BLUE FUCK is Obama pushing for the TPP? Larry Summers? Are you kidding me? [/font size]

The problem is the Democrats, not the Republicans!

[Cryptoad]

43. Our Problems

encompass far more than just Larry Summers,,,,,, and most of them have the GOP at their source and damn sure obstructing any positive changes !

[dgibby]

50. So,

why do YOU think Obama is pushing for/supporting TPP? Also, why do you think he's more likely to appoint a Republican to his cabinet/position of power than a Dem? BTW, keeping your enemies close doesn't count.

[Cryptoad]

57. I think Obama

truly believes that the TPP will overall be a economic plus for us. And He believes that his appointment are the best for the job. ..... I am so glad that these type of things are things that I have to disagree with Obama .

[tkmorris]

67. NOBODY believes those things. No one.

Least of all Obama. He knows what he's doing.

[Cryptoad]

73. well you are surly entitled to your opinion.....

but it still doesn't change the facts of our worst problem that are controlled by the GOP!

[Enthusiast]

137. The President can not believe that.

He knows it is a race to the bottom.

The President admitted that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated-as much as admitting that NAFTA is deeply flawed. He knows full well the TPP would devastate working class Americans.

[RC]

51. Larry Summers is just a symptom of the Democratic Party sickness.

Is is any wonder when the leaders of the Democratic Party are so far to the Right? DLC, DINO's, Ex Republicans because the Democratic Party has moved so far over as to meet their Conservative political beliefs...

[Cryptoad]

62. I sure rather have The Democrats

occupying the middle than the GOP.....

Remember to play the game ,,,the center rules....

Proudly we have made the Democratic Tent a big tent and I am glad to have conservative and centrist under our tent.

If we purge the Party of all but the purist Liberals and Progressives ,,,,, we will see the GOP rule!

[RC]

64. What you are saying Right of Center is OK with you?

Well, it is not with me.

[Cryptoad]

75. No that is not what I am saying,,

but I am saying it is the reality of Politics. I had lots rather being worrying about how to elect people who are more to the Left. than having to worry about how to defeat a Party of Idiots like the Tea Party .!!!!

Our System is designed for slow change.... if we dont get control of Congress and the SCOTUS change will be even slower!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

212. Yes you are. You're not fooling anyone.

And you can talk until you're blue in the face, but you're not going to convince anyone with half a brain that Democrats in DC are doing a heroic job for us. Evidence to the contrary is abundant.

[Cryptoad]

218. Funny yet you can not cite the post

where you claim i said that......

you over estimate your importance!

[progressoid]

119. Larry Summers is Republican wearing the clothes of a Democrat.

[Cryptoad]

178. Yes we must pruge

all conservative Democrats ......... geeez!

[truedelphi]

108. You nailed it.

And the reason the Democratic Leadership won't try to win for the middle class is that they are no longer working for the middle class.

[hfojvt]

18. the Democratic Party is not unABLE to raise taxes on the wealthy

they are just unWILLING to do so.

[Cryptoad]

24. Do tell

how the Dems can do that without control of Congress....?

[hfojvt]

45. you may remember when

when Democrats took control of Congress in January 2009.

Instead of raising taxes on the rich (like they promised during the campaign) they made excuses. "Well, the economy is bad, so we will just let the Bush tax cuts expire on 31 December 2010.

Then as it got closer and closer to 31 December 2010, they started making excuses. Then finally decided to extend the Bush tax cuts for another two years. Something they (and others) are STILL calling a "victory" - mainly because it also included the accursed payroll tax cut (a tax cut which is so accursed because it favors the rich).

Then when the two years passed, they voted for permanent tax cuts for the rich and called them tax increases. Democrats were unWILLING to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So they gave the rich permanent tax cuts instead.

[Cryptoad]

47. First things first

The Democrats have had control of Congress for a total of thirteen weeks since 2009, 99% of that was spent on ACA.

Maybe you should rethink your premise that the Dems could have done what ever they wanted to for the past 5 years....

[smokey nj]

53. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of Pres. Obama's first term.

Senate Democrats could have changed the filibuster rules at any point during that time. The "60 votes" nonsense was something Democrats did to themselves.

[Cryptoad]

60. Filibuster rules are not up for change at any time. nt

[smokey nj]

63. They could have been changed at any point.

Don't you remember this from July?

Reid's Filibuster Reform Threat Seems Shaky, But It's All He's Got

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/reids-filibuster-reform-threat-seems-shaky-its-all-hes-got/67168/

Or the "Up-or-Down" vote nonsense from back in 2005?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

Had the rules been changed back in Jan. of 2009, Democrats wouldn't have had to compromise anything.

[Cryptoad]

70. Well there some

disagreement about this.

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with the votes of two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needed to end debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

the procedural move is not certainly defined,,,,, the last time Senate changed a Senate rule in 1975 , it took 67 votes.

[smokey nj]

74. They could have changed them. Period.

[Cryptoad]

77. Just because Ried says he can change them doesnt make it so....

but he ran a good bluff!

[smokey nj]

79. You are wrong.

[Cryptoad]

81. Sorry

but you have not supported that proposition.

Even I were it does not change the fact that the Senate Rules for whatever reason have remained the same,

tHe Dems have not been in control of Congress but for those 13 weeks in the last 5 years........

that is a fact!

[smokey nj]

87. The rules of the Senate can be changed, they are not written in stone.

Traditionally, they are set at the first legislative session of each new Congress. Senate Democrats could have changed filibuster rules with a simple majority in Jan. of 2009.

Democrats controlled both houses of congress from Jan. 3, 2009 through Jan. 3, 2011. They put the 60 vote limit on themselves.

[Cryptoad]

88. I did not say that Senate rules could not be changed,,,,,

Common sense will tell you that they can not be changed that easily as you say,,,,, if they could, the majority would change all the rules for their favor and the minority could go home since they would be irrelevant to any process in the Senate......

There is a reason the last rule change in the Senate back in 1975 took a 67 vote to do so...
The SCOTUS says the minority can filibuster a rule change. (i cited that in above post)

[smokey nj]

92. It's called the Nuclear Option:

From the link you provided:

Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the Senate's presiding officer could on motion declare a Senate rule unconstitutional, which decision can be upheld by a simple majority vote of the Senate.

It's what Republicans threatened back in 2005.

[Cryptoad]

93. I know what it is called

the possibility exists

does that sound like a sure thing to you. ..... it sure doesn't sound like it to me and many scholars .
(you can Google volumes on that subject)

Like I said common sense tell us,,if it could be done that easily he would be done every time the majority changed.

[smokey nj]

94. You don't know what you're talking about and I'm tired of arguing with you.

If you want to defend Democratic legislative impotence, go right ahead.

[Cryptoad]

96. you still have not provide any support of your arguement....

and you have not provide anything that refuted what I have stated , but I will be glad to look at anything you may find to help make your case.

[smokey nj]

97. Can the rules of the Senate be changed? Yes. I proved my point.

You just want to make excuses for the Democrats squandering their majorities and I'm not falling for it. Now please leave me alone.

[Cryptoad]

144. But yoiu did not prove that this Senate had the votes to change it!

you are one that responded to my post ,,,you can quit your red heron attacks any time you like.

[smokey nj]

147. Yes, I did.

It's the nuclear option - can pass with a simple majority. I was paying attention back in 2005 when the Republicans threatened it, I know how it works. The only reason Republicans didn't change the rule was because a deal was struck. Like it or not, the Democrats have a simple majority in the Senate. They had way more than that in 2009.

[Cryptoad]

156. Only thing you have proved is

that Reid says he can change the Rules by simple majority ,,,

there is way more scholars that say he can't

cite me the Senate Rules that support your claim, then you crow!

[smokey nj]

161. I have proven my point. It's not my problem you refuse to believe it.

Also, the only thing you quoted was a sentence from Wikipedia. The next sentence, which I posted, refuted your claim. Sad thing is, Democrats didn't even use the threat of filibuster reform until this year. It was highly irresponsible of them to wait that long. Now I'm done with you and your weak justifications.

[Cryptoad]

168. You have presented no proof

just hearsay.

YOu are the one making the claim,, cite the Senate rule that proves your point.

you can't cause it doesn't exist.

[smokey nj]

171. What proof have you provided? None.

Also, if a party needs 41 votes to control the Senate then Republicans never had control during the Bush years. Go peddle your lame excuses somewhere else, because I'm not buying it.

[Cryptoad]

172. You made the claim,,,,,the burden of proof is yours

geez!!!!!

[smokey nj]

179. Here's your proof:

In 2005, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to end Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees by something called the "nuclear option." It is actually a series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules: (cite)
The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
The Senate Majority Leader raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
The Vice President -- acting as presiding officer -- sustains the point of order.
A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
This vote - to table the appeal - is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the issue at hand; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm

Switch the year and the party and the filibuster is no longer a problem. Democrats didn't even have to do that, they could have changed the rule to require an old fashioned talking filibuster. They could have tweaked the rule any way they wanted, they chose not to. Now, go peddle your nonsense somewhere else. I'm done beating my head against this brick wall.

[Cryptoad]

182. Seems you do not understand the difference

between proof and option. What you posted is an option on what First threaten to do. it is not proof that he could have done it ,,,, It has not been done, and there is a reason why. to date this has not been done.....


option and speculation is not proof!



I still await your proof.

[smokey nj]

183. I'm done with you.

[Cryptoad]

184. Yes

proving stuff aint easy!

[smokey nj]

185. You've lost every debate in this thread. Looks like you need the first rule of holes - when

you're in one stop digging.

[Cryptoad]

186. You are entitled to your opinion,,,

but it don't make it fact..... LMAO

[smokey nj]

187. Grow up.

[Cryptoad]

188. Never

[Enthusiast]

139. The fact remains the Democrats extended the Bush tax cuts with President Obama leading the way.

They did this voluntarily.

[Cryptoad]

145. The fact remains that Bush tax cut deal was part of a big compormise,,,,,, which was force by

the fact that Democrats only control the White House.... not Congress....
Was it ugly?,,,,, Yes
Would the deal been the same if we controlled Congress,,,,, NO!

[Enthusiast]

148. We had the presidency and both houses of congress.

Extending the Bush tax cuts destroyed our turnout in 2010 giving the house to the miscreants. You are defending the indefensible.

[Cryptoad]

151. WE have had control of the Senate

for a total of 13 weeks since Obama has been in office........

[Enthusiast]

138. The Bush tax cuts were to expire automatically.

Again, your bullshit.

[Cryptoad]

146. once again

Since we do not control Congress we had to make a deal with the Devil (GOP).

[Enthusiast]

150. We did not have to deal.

The tax cuts were set to expire and would have.

[Cryptoad]

152. you have to deal

if you want to get anything at all when yoiu have less that 60 votes in the Senate!

[Enthusiast]

157. The core principle of the Obama campaign was to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

He said it a million times. He lied. He voluntarily extended the tax cuts when we had a majority in both houses.

[Cryptoad]

158. What part of

"you do not Control the Senate with less than 60 votes", do you not understand?

[Enthusiast]

180. The Bush tax cuts would have expired automatically!

Unless interfered with. No majority necessary! Stop with your nonsense. I will not respond to your intentional misdirection.

[Cryptoad]

181. I have not said that they would not have expired automatically

What I said was the not letting them expire was part of the bigger deal that we were forced into because we do not have Control of any branch of Government except teh WhiteHouse....
it really not that hard to understand,,,,, you can start by not making up what you think I said and read what I said when I wrote the post.....but I guess that might not support your premise too much!

[grahamhgreen]

198. No one was forced into anything. Obama gave away the tax cut expiration.

[Cryptoad]

200. Not having control of Congress forces you may deals with the Devil (GOP)

[grahamhgreen]

201. Not having control of your integrity forces you to make deals with the devil.

[Cryptoad]

202. integrity and politicans ,,,,, oil and water

No body I know who has any integrity would run for public office.

[grahamhgreen]

112. If Obama had done nothing, the bush tax cuts would have expired automatically.

[Enthusiast]

140. Thank you.

That little act of extending the Bush tax cuts also served to depress Democratic turnout for the 2010 election. Two birds, one stone. Similar subterfuge is underway right now.

[smokey nj]

165. Amen!

[kentuck]

167. And we would not be talking about sequestration or not extending the debt limit or the other crap...

...that the Repubs are holding hostage at the moment. Because we would be near a balanced budget right now... The Repubs would not have any of this as an issue. But even a blind person should have seen this coming...

[mahina]

27. WORD.

[MotherPetrie]

29. And some are actively screwing/tring to screw us, i.e. re TPP. And by some, I mean none other than

The head of the Democratic Party himself.

[DeSwiss]

36. It's doing what it's paid to do.

- And not by us.

K&R

[center]
[/center]

[florida08]

48. perfect metaphor eom

[bigwillq]

38. The two-party system has achieved in ruining this nation.

The current system is not working.
We must put people before party.

[MNBrewer]

39. It's our fault, really, because

we, the voters, haven't elected a 500 seat Democratic majority in the House and a 105 seat Democratic majority in the Senate.

[Wolf Frankula]

40. Because Mainstream Democrats when they get a Majority

Think they have to be 'bipartisan'. They have to 'get along to go along'. They have to not offend. They have to 'do what's best' for the owners of the country. They stop being Democrats and become Rethuglicans.

When the Goopers had the House and Senate, you never heard them mention the word 'bipartisanshit'. Only sellouts like Joe Lieberman, (Look at me! I'm so bipartisan I always vote against my own party) did that. They didn't require 60 votes to get things through the Senate. We need REAL Democrats in Washington. Not sellouts, not Third Way Repubs lite. And not Presidents who think they were elected to forge a bipartisan consensus. REAL Democrats.

Are there any left?

Wolf

[mtasselin]

44. agree

Couldn't agree more, these dino's should be ashamed of themselves. They wonder why we lose, we lose because of them, they don't have any guts to stand up and fight. The only option is to vote them out in a primary and make it clear to the next person that if they don't do their job they will be next. They might own the suit, but they don't own the job.

[forestpath]

52. Led by Obama, their job is working for the 1% now.

[jtuck004]

54. "...To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to

Sometimes I read this and insert Democrat for Negro. Because once one realizes that the rich have done better at the expense of everyone else for the past several years, one might begin to think they live on a plantation too...

the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro. If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.

This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.

On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro -- those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call 'em "chitt'lings" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That's what you were -- a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters. *The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro -- remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die. If someone come [sic] to the field Negro and said, "Let's separate, let's run," he didn't say "Where we going?" He'd say, "Any place is better than here." You've got field Negroes in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro: "Our government"! I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant -- and "our astronauts"! "Our Navy" -- that's a Negro that's out of his mind. That's a Negro that's out of his mind.

Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That's Tom making you nonviolent. It's like when you go to the dentist, and the man's going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they're not doing anything to you. So you sit there and 'cause you've got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don't know what's happening. 'Cause someone has taught you to suffer -- peacefully." [Listen]

Here.

Interestingly, after Malcom X lived in South Africa he referred to his period of racism and black nationalism as a mistake, and embraced the idea that we are all in the same boat. I suspect if he had not been murdered he would have come to realize that it is the wealthy, grasping, greedy capitalist and those without basic humanity vs everyone else.

It's kind of summarized in the words of Harriet Tubman, though she doesn't expand on it like Malcom X did...

"I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

[Hydra]

83. Read Brother Malcolm's wikiquote page

It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely….

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

[jtuck004]

91. "It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs...

some blood to suck."

A lot of people thought that back in the 60's. Then many became enablers of it. And he may be correct, but he still had hope that people could free themselves, and consider the idea that the victims may all be dead before capitalism (or is it fascism now?) eats all of its food supply, and then collapses. And that is very possible.

I read his work, along with people like Mother Jones, Paulo Freire, Myles Horton, la Boetie, lots of others. They weren't infallible, (haven't met the person that is yet), but theirs was a specialized task, trying to free people from the chains that are in their minds, and that's a hard and dangerous sort of work. Once one adopts their point of view, their way of looking at the world, it becomes hard to even make friends among people who think they are helping others, because they always think that "doing for" is somehow akin to "doing like" them, and it's not. Such work is something that needs to be pursued if we are to have any hope, but the only reward so far for its practitioners has been death, and maybe a book or two about them, so there isn't a long line applying for the job

Oh yeah, thank you for that.

[Hydra]

114. NP

Of all my idols, I think he had the best grasp of what was going on, especially in his angry days. He saw capitalism, war, oppression and the people in charge all in the same "sphere." I don't know that he would have called it the 1%...because in those days, there were lots of people at the top getting fat off the non-people. These days the number at the top has thinned. I've even heard the 1/10-1/110th of the 1% are feeding off the lower 1%ers.

Nobody is infallible, and if someone were we'd never know them. They would be like a ghost in the system. Like you said, their job, and the job of others now is to teach people to see their cages and how to break out of them.

Capitalism has a lifespan. It died in the first great depression, and FDR revived it. I think he made a mistake in doing so- we're fighting the same battle all over again against the same sorts of people. Maybe we can do better, or maybe it's too late with climate change and pollution like Fukushima and the Deepwater Horizen...but we should try

[winter is coming]

58. It's doing a job. Question is, who's it working for? n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. “Where are they going to go?”

[LWolf]

76. Yep. nt

[libdem4life]

69. Obama didn't have the backing ... the depth into the Party politics. Not being an "insider"

in DC politics may be popular on the campaign, but it doesn't command the power and have the influence...for ill or good...in office.

Hillary has the backing and the personal "iron fist" of power. Like it or not, she is the only one who can get elected and has the badly needed coattails to elect Democrats down ticket. Who else could raise over a billion dollars and is already organized and running? Will pay lots of salaries, buy lots of loyalty, fill the party coffers and reward those like Biden and Warren with prominent positions...like Obama did.

It's those coattails she has that help the Democrats find out and hopefully learn how to wield power...for the middle class and all of those issues stated.

I voted for Obama, but Hillary has more than earned her shot at Madame President.

To paraphrase an old phrase, "She may be a power broker, but she's our power broker" She's the only candidate the Republicans fear...that's a good place to start.

[Doctor_J]

103. Would having her as president prevent TPP? Prevent KeystoneXL? Get the banksters prosecuted?

get UHC passed? Stop the corporatization of the schools? Cut the defense budget?

Get real

[libdem4life]

106. Unfortunately, the reality is not to my personal liking. But I read the following article

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-04-130913.html posted on another DU link.

We do not think globally at our national peril, I fear, particularly around pipelines. I'm rethinking that.

Financially, we are owned by those who own our banksters...and they are not on this continent. We pay them, perhaps through these banksters, but the interest on our debt goes offshore one way or the other.

The school issue is local...that's my professional and parental background. They did not have any programs for my son so out of necessity, I started a charter school...the first parent-coop charter school in California. I had to work with Republican lawmakers ... imagine my chagrin ... and make several trips to Sacramento. I'm proud of that and he got an education. Parents have options now. Didn't happen in a vacuum.

The defense budget? She's not in charge of that any more than Obama was. That's the bureaucratic war machine.

[grahamhgreen]

113. Wait. They said the same about Hill in 2008. We have much better options:)

[blackspade]

132. No Hillary. Absolutely not.

The Democratic Party can do much better.

[polichick]

80. Or maybe it's changed its job description...

and purposely didn't bother to tell the voting pawns.

[L0oniX]

99. It's not much of a real Democratic party anymore anyway.

Clinton changed it a lot and IMO not for the better.

[Vashta Nerada]

107. The Democratic Party hasn't been doing its job since 2000.

[bvar22]

217. a little longer than that.

The Democratic Party hasn't been doing its job since 1992.

[nashville_brook]

109. funny how the minority has no trouble calling the shots

and the majority...when with both houses plus executive...couldn't create an equitable fix to TBTF. just to take one example.

most everyone feels taken for a ride, and that REALLY not good for our brand going forward. we all agree we need more/better Dems. We'll never get them if our Reps don't follow thru on fighting for us.

[liberal_at_heart]

110. With the public opinion on the NSA and Syria and with more and more liberal candidates putting up a

serious run, I think we are very close to starting a populist movement.

[WCGreen]

116. It's because most of the Democrats in Congress have to get funding from the

same people who are funding GOP candidates.

If they upset the donors, the donors will simply switch to a republican candidate.

[Kolesar]

160. That is a big part of it

I don't see much effort at nuance or background on this thread, unfortunately.

[Fuddnik]

118. Of course thy're doing their job.

They see their job as getting re-elected.

From day one, they start calling people to donate to their re-election campaign. No wonder they don't have time to read bills.

[blackspade]

121. +1000

[MichaelKelley]

142. Hi

This is a common tendency towards any government, but I think this is because they are not taking that much care, which is needed.

[blkmusclmachine]

143. FIND THE CENTER

Keep looking this way --->

[xchrom]

153. du rec.

[Kolesar]

159. It's your fault if you haven't been organizing

I have been in so many canvasses that I lost count.
My final organizing effort led to a renewable energy portfolio standard in Ohio.
I didn't just sit in my chair and construct clauses for a message board.

[Scuba]

162. Space available ...

Credit DUer RC for this graphic.

[Safetykitten]

166. Someone else's fault. Not Obama, not our leadership, really it's something or some entity...

to be named later.

[LaydeeBug]

169. This is so important because there are some who would rather fight you here than fight FOR

our principles out *there*.

This infighting and insinuating is just wrong, as it is for democrats to forget why they're there.

[treestar]

173. What is a party's "job?"

To field candidates. Doesn't mean they will all win. All things you mention are due to Republicans winning often enough.

It's becoming very clear that there are many posters who really want to damage the Democrats, rather than build them up.

[Safetykitten]

176. Maybe we have a bad "product". Think that could be the thing? An entire market is being ignored.

You know, Democrats.

[Puglover]

213. Pretty much the same thing as the posters here

that want to enable their behavior even if it's contrary for what they were elected for.

Same thing. Different sides of the spectrum.

I see both types of behaviors as a negative.

[heaven05]

189. kentuck

you nailed it, succinctly. I want courage from our party in general, not from just a few, Sanders, Grayson and Warren come to mind. We have a Party that was weakened by the Bushco machine's theft of our highest office and NEVER recovered. Hell, even let a fascist element get a foothold in our government.

[polynomial]

192. Mainstream media could with ease help America

The Hollywood Congress is the new culture. Cable television exposure combined with a depreciated education all over America is a major source of the problem. True some parts of the country have terrific education. That is which helps many to understand the defiant ways of corporate America.

As an example in education just this afternoon surfing finding out that Michigan has an extraordinary k-12 system that is contrary to some of the reasoning displayed in community bias, with tyranny type government. Black communities taken over. For instance an eighth grader being able to understand mathematical analysis in three dimensions is extraordinary especially when using the “del” operator. This supports my own opinion that education nationally is so cockeyed it is pathetic. This contrasting in Michigan in that a complete town can be taken over by the governor even after a democratic election.

Also incredible and a true real time story, where a time in my schedule I had to rent a Hertz rent a car. However, using the car locally without going on the toll road I was charged $65.00 in toll fee, still trying to resolve this dilemma. From my view someone figure how to steal money from my account and plus Hertz is essentially saying I have to track down the problem. I am laughing to myself because it seems if corporate America screws up John Doe tax payer has to figure the way out. Warning went renting a car…

Then there is medical bills, Americans need to make copies and files to keep track of everything. So before you retire get a copy fax machine combination to help you keep track. There is an incredible population of Rush Limbaugh/ Hannity types out there that want to jam the system deny everything anything they can to avoid in paying benefits. Which includes, not taking action on simple requests such as what is needed for your disability compensation. Plus, importantly whatever is needed in initializing the documentation for specific technical details that support, or explain medical complex events.

Similarly our national security chain of command has such of the same problem. Seriously, serious think about the gaps the pitfalls the short change Americans get in the health care is on parallel with our 911 national security that was too big too fail, but it did big time.

[Oilwellian]

194. I'm a little confused kentuck

I agree with everything you said in this thread, but am puzzled as to why you would recommend the thread "Liberals Without a Conscious" that viciously attacks those of us trying to pull the party back to its roots.

[kentuck]

204. I'll check it out??

I don't recall.

Thanks! Fixed.

[woo me with science]

195. kick

[BlueJac]

196. For a long time now!!!!!!!!!!

The have become Republican far right lite. I can't stomach them any more.

[Bonhomme Richard]

197. Sure they are.

They are doing the job they are paid to do. Protect this form of capitalism at all cost.
Good cop....bad cop

[Iwillnevergiveup]

207. "They have no passion for a fight."

Totally agree with this sentiment, kentuck.

Elizabeth Warren: "If we fight, we win." Grayson has also been mentioned - he fought like hell to regain his seat and won. The 2014 midterms are shaping up to be as important as the Presidential in 2016. As candidates line up, it behooves us here at DU to get behind say, the 25 most progressive, most pro-middle class, least DLC, least corporate candidates running for the House. That is where most of the corrupt crazies live, and they must GO!

[woo me with science]

214. At this point the Democratic Party is not only not doing its job,

it is aggressively and proactively selling us out.