Thomas Frank calls out blind partisanship by Dems

[Proud Public Servant]

It's a compelling read, aimed squarely at a familiar DU talking point:

Let me explain what I mean by reminding you of one of the most disturbing news stories to come across the wires in the last month. In a much-reported study, the Russell Sage Foundation discovered that median household wealth in this country fell by 36 percent in the 10-year period ending last year. Wealth for people at the top, as other news stories remind us, has continued to soar. These things are a consequence of the Great Recession, of course, but they are also a reminder of the grand narrative of our time: The lot of average Americans constantly seems to be growing worse. The Great Depression of the 1930s was awful, but it set America on the path toward a period of shared prosperity. Our bout of hard times has had the opposite effect. It has accelerated the unraveling of the middle class itself.

Now, you can blame the risible, Ayn Rand-reading Tea Party types for this if you like, and you can also blame the George W. Bush Administration. They both deserve it. But sooner or later you will also have to acknowledge that there are two parties in this country, not just one; that the Democrats held significant power during the period in question, including (for much of it) the presidency itself; and that even when they are not in the White House, these Democrats nevertheless retain the capacity to persuade and to organize. For a party of the left, dreadful news like this should be rocket fuel. For the Dems, however, it hasn’t been. Why is that? Well, for one thing, because a good number of those Democrats have not really objected to the economic policies that have worked these awful changes over the years. They may believe in the theory of evolution—hell, they may savor the same Jon Stewart jokes that you do —but a lot of them also believe in the conventional economic wisdom of the day. They don’t really care that union power has evaporated and that Wall Street got itself de-supervised and that oligopolies now dominate the economy. But they do care—ever so much!—about deficits and being fiscally responsible.

Bring up this obvious point, however, and you will quickly discover what a dose of chloroform the partisan style can be. There’s a political war on, you will be told; one side is markedly better than the other; and no criticism of the leadership can be tolerated. Instead, let’s get back to laughing along with our favorite politicized comedians, and to smacking that Rick Santorum punching bag.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/10/jon_stewart_is_not_enough_the_curse_of_centrism_and_why_the_tea_party_keeps_rolling_daily_show_democrats/

Now back to being Ready for Hillary...

[KoKo]

1. It's been a puzzle why our Dem Party hasn't seized the talking points

on wealth inequality and the Bank Bailouts with lack of prosecution for those who helped bring down the Financial System of the US/EU causing Austerity for innocents and causing thousands to lose their homes or suffer through nightmares of paperwork and legal actions to save their homes.

We could have seized the moment because we had a Popular President elected with the country ready to clean up the mess after Bush/Cheney. President Obama had a huge activist base who knew how to get his message out over the internet and on the streets.

Then....all the efforts seemed to go to attacking the Tea Party and focusing on the evil Republicans rather than building our party through grassroots activism. Obama couldn't do this all himself. It's the Dem Party Leadership that let us down in this. They didn't focus on a "50 State Strategy" like Howard Dean did and they cut off their Left Activists from the moment Obama was elected leaving it to the Obama Activist Netroots to attack Republicans, Faux News and RW Internet Blogs plus silencing the Left of their own party rather than doing ground work refining the Democratic Message and challenging the Party when it strayed ever rightward hoping to gain Republican support.

[n2doc]

3. There is no mystery.

Obama indicated from day 1 after his election that the banksters were going to be his main concern, based on his transition team choices. Classic bait and switch. HRC would have done the same.

[daleanime]

17. would....

will......classic grammar (and political) problem.

[n2doc]

21. I don't think HRC will bother trying to hide her biases

She is closer to Mitt Rmoney than people want to admit.

[ballyhoo]

24. Exactly. Who to vote for president in

2016? I don't know anymore. I'm off Warren since she passively announced her position on the Gaza situation by literally running away from reporters when they asked the questions. Once the November results are announced and we become pure inverse fascists maybe the picture will clear as to who would make a good president.

[AlbertCat]

34. I'm off Warren since she passively announced her position on the Gaza situation

This is the problem with both party's constituents.

One issue voting....thinking.

You're off Warren because of some passive thing you disagree with. But what about all the things she does and beleives that you DO agree with? They mean nothing now because she walked away from a question on one issue. This is exactly like people who won't vote for someone because "They are killing little babies!" or something.

It works the other way too. "He's got my vote. He's for 2nd amendment rights!" but forget that he wants to gut your schools or want's Exxon to not have to pay any taxes and a host of other dreadful things. As long as you can keep your guns! That's ALL (apparently) that matters.

This "no true Scotsman" attitude and voting behavior is ruining the country.

Issues, platforms, and people are COMPLICATED. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. No one is ever gong to get everything they want.

Every election since the beginning of time has been for the BEST candidate, not the perfect one.

And Yes.... the Dems have gone way to the right....as has the entire country. But one party is friggin' NUTS these days! and it ain't the Dems. I mean, Louis Gommert? Michelle Bachmann? Rand Paul?.... etc etc.

[ballyhoo]

39. It's a matter of order of importance for me. If a

candidate can turn her ahead away from a people being slaughtered because of political expedience, I don't care what else she says that I agree with. Dead babies are real important to me in the big scheme of things. I'll speak for myself. You can do the same. I may have to face a higher power some day. He may ask me why I chose the promise of increased tax credits on new farm equipment against helping a bunch of innocent people being murdered. I intend to not have to answer that question.

[AlbertCat]

43. I may have to face a higher power some day.

Another thing ruining this country is religion and ancient superstitions.

[ballyhoo]

50. The body of your post disavowed your header. For me:

I believe both in religion and many ancient superstitions. Especially now as we are moving closer to denouement. Some may prefer clutching a roll of quarters during their last breath. I'll clutch the bible--even if it is totally wrong, for it at least has been guidance.

[AlbertCat]

56. clutching a roll of quarters during their last breath.

The last thing I'm worried about is what I might be clutching during my last breath. Because after that breath, one will be dead anyway. I prefer to worry about the here and now, not ancient goatherd fairytales.

[ballyhoo]

57. Good. Let's say we have a different idea about what will

happen after death. Besides, I like goats.

[passiveporcupine]

68. You are welcome to your beliefs, however

Some may prefer clutching a roll of quarters during their last breath. I'll clutch the bible

That is an insult to all agnostics/atheists/deists of other religions that don't follow the bible. Just because you don't believe in the bible, does not mean you worship money and are a corporatist/capitalist greedy pig.

Some of the kindest, intelligent, loving people I've ever known are atheists. Many of us are very spiritual in our own ways, even though we don't believe in your idea of god or bible. Many of us lean towards socialism over capitalism, although we prefer a mix of the two. Many many bible thumpers believe in capitalism and the 1% right to be greedy.

[ballyhoo]

73. No mention, sleight or otherwise, was made of or about atheists, so any insult perceived by

you is in your own mind only.

[passiveporcupine]

74. You conveniently ignored that I didn't just mention atheists

I addressed all people who do not follow the bible. And no, it's not an insult in my own mind and you know it. It was very deliberate on your part. And it was not necessary to say it unless you intended to make yourself sound superior for believing in the bible.

[ballyhoo]

78. I am superior to my God, and that is who I continue reinforcing allegiance to. While

I acknowledge others, I have to keep them secondary to those who do believe in God. That's the way my religion works. That will have to be the end of our conversation or I am not obeying 2 Corinthians 6:14. I wish you a good life in that which you have chosen.

[passiveporcupine]

79. You have a good life too

And don't worry, I forgive you for "judging me".

I am so glad Jesus did not decide to keep fellowship apart from us "sinners" (as if Christians never sin... ). As a matter of fact, that's who he spent his time with!

[AndyTiedye]

83. Those are the Ones Who Got Run Over While Trying to Feed the Parking Meter

clutching a roll of quarters during their last breath

It takes a whole roll of quarters in the City these days.

[ballyhoo]

86. I know. I usually have to use a credit card. $2.00 for

one hour. The receipt comes in Parking for Dollars. First hover car comes in, I'm buying it.

[AndyTiedye]

84. So Then the GOP Wins and Doubles Aid to Israel, but Your Conscience is Clean

Sounds like a 2000 Nader voter.

[rhett o rick]

94. If H. Clinton-Sachs runs, then all bets are off. It won't be on those of us that won't vote for her

it will be on those that had the nerve to nominate the candidate that the Powers That Be want. The candidate supported by the big corporations.

The 2000 fiasco wasn't Nader's fault, he was free to do what he wanted. It was the fault of the Conservative Democrats that thought that Gore could win.

If you don't want Jeb to be president, don't nominate H. Clinton-Sachs. Don't blame, Nader, don't blame the left that gave you plenty of warning, look in the mirror for the blame.

The lower classes are getting killed and H. Clinton-Sachs has not made a single indication that she would change things. At least Obama lied to us.

[sabrina 1]

92. That depends on the importance of the issue, doesn't it?? And THIS is a VERY important issue. I am

off her now too because it is indicative of a person who presented themselves to us as an outsider in DC only to demonstrate, as Hillary did with her Iraq War vote, how much of an insider she is. And doesn't doesn't bode well for the people.

We've seen too many of those who were presented as 'for the people' and 'for human rights' etc, only to see them join the rest of their colleagues on issues like this.

We don't need to wait anymore when we see the writing on the wall. We no longer have to spend years trying to excuse those we once supported. There just isn't time anymore.

What is needed are people who share OUR values. Not DC values.

So, as they say in DC, it's time to 'move forward' and start looking for someone else to place our hopes in. Fool me once etc.

[2banon]

33. exactly. I had my concerns prior to election, but the first day after election

was jaw dropping, it just got worse with every appointment.. confirming doubts, worse fears, perceptions during the campaign..

It was an astonishing game of bait and switch. Yes, HRC would have done the same.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Well ...

It's been a puzzle why our Dem Party hasn't seized the talking points ... We could have seized the moment because we had a Popular President elected with the country ready to clean up the mess after Bush/Cheney. President Obama had a huge activist base who knew how to get his message out over the internet and on the streets.

And I know you don't want to hear this ...

Democrats didn't/haven't and probably won't pursue seize on the income inequality talking points because that is not an issue that the vast majority of the electorate are concerned with ... at least, not as it is frequently framed here.

[n2doc]

22. Or at least, they don't vote that way n/t

[kentuck]

27. Democrats have been very progressive on social issues...

But, as far as raising taxes on the wealthy or cutting our military budget or jobs programs, crickets. They are all in the same boat. Economic issues are where Democrats are lacking.

[YoungDemCA]

59. "Economic" and "social" are not really separate

nt

[octoberlib]

46. I would imagine the vast majority of the electorate isn't aware that the number one

reason Democracies fail is high levels of income inequality and that no Democracy in the history of the world has survived a huge income gap. Income equality is such a reliable indicator of whether a Democracy survives or not that political scientists developed the Gini Coefficient to measure it. High levels of income inequality result in uprisings and revolutions. And those will happen here too, eventually. I don't have confidence that this will ever be fixed in Washington. I know that Obama has read and/or talked to Nick Hanauer, who's been sounding the alarm about all this and has even used Hanauer's term 'middle-out economics'. But the politicians won't act until the polls tell them they need to act.


If Democrats were better at messaging we might be able to get the public concerned about this. But our messaging has always been terrible going back to the beginnings of the party itself.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. I largely agree ...

But the problem I see is that rather than staying and building that messaging, the left is ready to cut and run.

[questionseverything]

52. when 10s of thousands of young and old were involved in the occupy movement

it was mostly democratic mayors working with homeland security (under a dem president) that brutely shut them down

so it is not that a vast majority are not concerned....it is that we were not listened to by the democratic party (because both parties are owned by the 1%)

[Maedhros]

65. It's not that the Democratic Party isn't listening,

it's that they hear and just don't care.

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. 10s of thousands ...

in a country of 200+ million eligible voters does not constitute a vast majority ... not even among those that are registered Democrats.

[questionseverything]

102. way to ignore

the despicable way dem mayors and our own dem pres treated occupy

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. What does that have to do with your "vast majority" claim? eom.

[sendero]

69. Because Reps are beholden..

... to big business of all stripes, oil, pharma, defense, but Democrats are beholden to Wall Street and the banks and if you don't believe me research where their big money comes from and get back to me.

The repeal of Glass-Stegall and the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the TWO LYNCHPINS of the banking mess we are in today, happened on Bill Clinton's watch.

[n2doc]

2. Problem is, there really isn't another choice

Regardless of the fellow travelers in the Democratic Party, it is the Republicans and their philosophy that have caused these problems. One cannot say "punish the dems" because there is no alternative to them other than the repubs, at least nationally.

The vast majority of voters vote based on name recognition, and whatever push they get the most out of with deceptive ads. So a candidate like HRC has a huge advantage going into 2016, and the only way around that is for supporters of Warren or Sanders, or whomever, to put a vast, disproportionate effort into supporting them with money and time. So far I haven't seen it.

And most pols will support policies that keep them in office and increase their wealth/power. That's the main reason why they support policies that are destructive to the 99%, because those same policies are good for the 1%. And the 1% has become ever more blatant about making sure their desires are followed by congress and the white house.

[jtuck004]

5. That's what they told people on plantations, too. But there was. n/t

[n2doc]

6. Occupy tried that. See where it got them n/t

[jtuck004]

8. It took a Civil War and millions dying to effect the other. That would be like comparing it to a

fistfight.

In more ways than one.

[AndyTiedye]

82. If We Have One of Those Now We Would Probably Lose

All would depend on how successful the Dominionists have been in their efforts to take over the U.S. Air Force.

[jtuck004]

87. You mistake what I said. I just used that as a comparison, not a suggestion for a strategy.

It's quite clear that for about 100 million Americans they have been consigned to using their labor and foregoing the opportunity we used to provide people, and are merely serving on a plantation for the interests of whomever is elected. Timothy McVeigh - sorry, I mean Geithner (I get my terrorists mixed up) just released a book (and in trying to explain it had an audience of voters laugh in his face while Jon Stewart ridiculed him for fucking us all over) and told us that this was, and is, the plan - that bailing out all those people would have been a huge mistake. (In other words it would have cost all their rich friends a lot of money). Which means that for about 100 million Americans, about 15 million of whom were not in poverty when this President took office and who now are, and who face likely poverty for the rest of their lives BY DESIGN, what they are doing is serving at the behest of and to support their masters, not themselves, along with 10 million families who lost their homes in foreclosure and millions of our neighbors who will live in poverty for the rest of their lives so that thieving bankers can be comfortable.

But de le Boetie, back in about 1500 or so, wrote in his Discourse on Servitude that that the tyrant has nothing that we don't give him or her, and that we don't HAVE to lift an arm.

We just have to stop supporting them. They will fall of their own weight.

Instead, for a strategy, it means people just stop. Walk away. Make it with each other, the best way you can, build something better and different.

Or continue to endure servitude. (I think most people are too lazy or cowardly to stop it, btw. Most sit on their fat asses in front of a tv and watch others get pummeled by the life we have. They don't consider that THEY are the ones making it possible, taking care of the Master's house, while their own burns to the ground. They also don't realized that they may well be in the same line, whether they think it or not, and it gets shorter when that happens.

If they just stood shoulder-to-shoulder, so to speak, with their neighbors there are about 312 million of us. 4 million of them. We could change it.

Anytime we decide to develop more backbone than a slave on a plantation, we could end this, and we don't need an Army to come to the rescue. But we would have to endure the same deprivations the slaves did when they were released from the plantations, and then killed by the conditions around them - and the white people and the US government in poorly run camps and other ill-planned exercises.

We are far better educated and have much better science and a raft of better opportunities. Unfortunately, slavery isn't in the chains, it's in the mind. And we have at least 5 generations who have been taught that no sacrifice is needed, just a good credit score, for a better life, the thing Jimmy Carter warned us against. Many of them will be of no help, and are more likely to help the opponents of people who want safety and security in their lives. So I doubt very seriously that anything will happen before we make the world uninhabitable.

I guess we showed him.

[AndyTiedye]

88. The Kind of Unity You Envisage is Not Possible

If they just stood shoulder-to-shoulder, so to speak, with their neighbors there are about 312 million of us. 4 million of them. We could change it.

About 40% of the population is totally brainwashed by the Mighty Slime Machine (MSM) and/or the right wing churches.
They will side with the 1% every time.

Even on our side, it is hard to reach consensus.

[fredamae]

4. At some point those

who have been pointing this out-only to be "dog piled" for Daring to mention the hard facts about "some Dems" aiding the GOP in the demise of unions, middle class, environment, social security (CPI), NAFTA/CAFTA, Bush tax cuts, Pat Act, spying, voting rights, tax reform, the still free banksters and on and on and on.
Is it actual Compromise or an excuse to sell out the Dem base hoping the masses don't see it?

[zeemike]

18. It's a sell out.

When there is big money involved few can resist it...and there is big money involved...that is what the tax cuts for the wealthy was all about, giving them the resources to buy the government.

Kind of ironic, that they bought the government with it's own money.

[DeSwiss]

7. K&R!

[RufusTFirefly]

9. K & R! n/t

[Cosmocat]

10. The Democratic Party is a complete non-entity

at this point and time.

Just a bunch of elected officials who have registered with the party going it alone, quite honestly.

I have really become attuned to this over the last few years.

We all are completely abhorred at how aweful the republicans are, but what are democrats trying to do? What policies, what agenda? What are they fighting for?

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. If you don't know what Democrats are about ...

then I would suggest that you are not so attuned, as you claim.

I do, however, agree that the Democrats (as with all of "liberal" society) has a significant portion that seem to relish in proving their "independentness" by bucking against whatever President Obama says.

[Cosmocat]

23. you missed the point, pretty badly

My post not in any form questioning "what the party is about."

It notes the near complete absence of the party actually doing anything.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. No, I haven't missed your point ...

I simply disagree.

[Cosmocat]

53. Yeah

you have, but dig your heels in and think what you want ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Okay, I just read the snippet and ...

well ... I guess for it to mean something, I just have to ignore stuff like this:

the Russell Sage Foundation discovered that median household wealth in this country fell by 36 percent in the 10-year period ending last year.

Okay, no problem there; but, ...

Now, you can blame the risible, Ayn Rand-reading Tea Party types for this if you like, and you can also blame the George W. Bush Administration. They both deserve it. But sooner or later you will also have to acknowledge that there are two parties in this country, not just one; that the Democrats held significant power during the period in question, including (for much of it) the presidency itself

WTF??? Maybe some Frank fan might look at this and ask what's wrong with this frame? {Hint: There are at least 3 problems with Frank's frame.}

Then, maybe, I'll read the article.

[99Forever]

12. K&R

[L0oniX]

13. That has DU written all over it.

IMO the Dem party doesn't need or want the left anymore. I don't see much of a future where the left and third way are going to work together.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. The Democratic Party needs and wants the Left ...

as much as it always has.

The angst you are feeling is that you (your philosophical compatriots) believe you deserve a bigger/better place at the Democratic table than other Democrats are willing to grant you.

But two things, you must understand/recognize: first, it is not "Democrats" askewing the "Left", so much as the "Left" (and yes, I realize the effect of this next phrasing) throwing a tantrum because the whole of the party won't follow your/their policy prescriptions; and relatedly, that this should come as no surprise when you, the Left, makes no bones about "Democratic" being their 3rd or 4th political descriptor.

[kentuck]

32. There is no fear of the left...

within the Democratic Party establishment?

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. Why should the Democratic Party Establishment ...

"fear" the left? We want the same things; but just differ in tactics and timing.

[kentuck]

42. This is just my opinion...

but I think there may be a "divorce" in the future? If we continue the road we are on, and lose the Senate and the House to the GOP in November, some might think it is time for a change? After all, if we can lose with our present strategy, why not try something new?

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Funny ...

some might think it is time for a change? After all, if we can lose with our present strategy, why not try something new?

How can one be critical of a strategy when one refuses to adopt, if not actively working to subvert, that strategy?

[2banon]

37. You really had to say that, didn't you. The Left "Throwing a tantrum".

because we deserve a bigger place at the table, than the Party is willing to grant us.

Despicably condescending, punch to the Left, and we should simply turn the other cheek and keep taking it.

That's a great selling strategy, keep it up. I'm so sure this will make the party "stronger".

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. Yes, I did ...

And your response is EXACTLY why.

[2banon]

41. What exactly in my response motivates you? Because I feel insulted and condescended to?

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. I'm sorry that you feel insulted and condescended to ...

but the fact is, "the left" is the body threatening to walk away from the Democratic Party (though it's cast as being driven out) because they feel un-listened too. What is that if not a tantrum?

[2banon]

55. Certainly you're intelligent enough to know very well there's a hell of a lot more to it than that.

The Left is fairly well seasoned on the hard boiled Real Politic and "sausage making" in pushing forward socio-economic and justice policies and legislation for over a century and a half, and certainly working with of course the Democratic Party since FDR the past 7-8 decades.

That's a considerable chunk of time, labor, and experience involved in the ever on going struggle for a more equal and just society and representative government. It's been a very long, hard fought struggle.. with very significant real-life consequences to which the working and middle class have greatly benefited. To stand by and watch the wanton destruction of this is no frivolous trivial matter to be likened to a childrens playground, or tantrum thrown because a toy was taken away.

Let me put it this way:

To witness our party assist the republicans tear down brick by brick so much of our hard fought gains, is tantamount to an arsonist burning down our home, while the Fire Department stands by and does nothing to put out the fire, further adding insult to injury by allowing the arsonist to get away with it.

To denounce the Fire Department's complicity in the destruction of our home, would not be considered a childish tantrum by most adults.

[historylovr]

62. +1

[busterbrown]

66. But it all changed with few noticing.

Much of the blame has to be put on the our Party when we sadly stood by and watch Reagan begin the destruction of Unions...as well as vilifying our poor with the “Welfare Queen “ analogy..
But few of us became uneasy, we just went along with the flow, instead of drawing a big fucking line in the sand

Then came NAFTA(Clinton triangulation) and shortly after that Deregulation.. No lines drawn as well. By then the water was boiling, money was fluid, media became the internet and everyone wanted more.. Also by this point, The Fairness Doctrine was overturned so corporate media had little to fear

By 2007, When the recession began to roll and though Republicans were the driving this bus,were well in control of most major media outlets and were already pushing Trickle Down Economics as the solution ...

My point being, that we are now in the position we are, because Dems. sat down and covered their eyes and ears for 25 yrs and there was absolutely no push back on Republican Economic Ideology during this period.. There are absolutely no simple fix for us except to hope for more more progressive dem candidates winning primaries and then elections.. This will take time..

[2banon]

70. But the Left WAS noticing with a very sharp eye, and sounding the horns

underscoring your point (I think) that no one was noticing, or listening.

Or they just didn't give a damn, cuz they got their's so why should they give a damn?

But hey, making simple observations is responded to with the canard that the Left is just throwing temper tantrums. Seriously, fucked up.

[hatrack]

99. "Temper tantrums" - it's as if Rahm Emmanuel is posting here . . .

"Reaching out", v. 2014.

[historylovr]

47. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party

needs and wants our money, our gotv efforts, and of course, our votes, but as for our ideas/ideals, it could take or leave them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Yes, the Democratic Party needs/wants the left's

money, gotv efforts, and of course, votes. But the left's ideas/ideals ARE part and parcel of the Democratic Party ... just not its tactics.

[historylovr]

60. I agree with you re: the party and the left when it comes to social issues.

I don't see much sharing of ideas/ideals on the economic side.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Why do you not eludicate what you mean by 'tactics'. What 'tactics' do liberals have that you

conservatives reject? What 'tactics' do you embrace that you feel are rejected by those who are less conservative than you are? Be specific. You speak as if you have specifics in mind. What are they and what is your basis for disagreeing with these 'tactics'?

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. I am NOT a "conservative" ...

But two tactics that "the left" promote that I find less than optimal are: 1) the insistence on focusing on economics, rather than social matters; and 2) the seemingly "I want everything, right now", rather than building on gradual social change.

In the first case, I disagree because it works against my political interest, as such a focus leaves me (and all non-straight, non-white males) in the same relative position. In the later case, I disagree because I am a student of history and that history informs us that lasting social change comes as the result of frustratingly small, incremental steps.

[Phlem]

61. exactly,

The Dem's are becoming the lighter version of the right. The Dem party is NOT a true force of opposition anymore.

[Enthusiast]

14. HRC is an unacceptable choice for a presidential candidate.

We would end up with more of the same or worse.

[Rapillion]

16. Not a mystery

Follow the money. It is incredibly expensive to campaign, more so than ever before. Some pols and "consultants" get sick digits of bank running campaigns.

The only nonviolent way to try to beat this is to run against money and everything it stands for and everyone who has it. Make it the centerpiece of your campaign. Run Wellstone-style. Change the rules. Use the multitude of tools available to get your message out. Use the fuckers' bank against them. Then you have a fighting chance.

Tom Frank is right, but . . . pardon the pun . . . it's not baffling.

[zeemike]

20. +1

That's the answer, but the party wants the money not the votes.
And welcome to DU.

[Rapillion]

75. Thank you! Nt

[Cosmocat]

25. Yep, it has to be all out, 100 percent

Howard Dean times 100 ...

Someone with a dynamic personality and literally no baggage who does not sell out one iota.

Problem is, politics is politics.

We as a people put immense pressure in countless ways to force pols to sell out.

Heck, I was on school board, was really good at it, pretty much everyone liked me, but I didn't sell out on the one thing that people were bent out of shape over and got bounced.

The election LITERALLY went in the inverse of how it should have went, the worst possible people getting the most votes, the best people getting the least.

I would not, but I can see how pols sell out, don't speak truth to power or issues, say what "they have to say ..."

It really isn't the fault of the pols, they are who they are.

It is the people voting (and not voting)who are the problem.

[Rapillion]

76. People get what they deserve

But parties have to have some principles or they wither away.

You should be proud that you stood for what was right.

[AndyTiedye]

89. What People Get Has Nothing to Do With What they Deserve Most of the Time

[kentuck]

26. In my opinion, the bottom line...

...is that "liberals" have given up their principles out of fear of losing elections. Since the time of FDR, it is the "liberals" that have been the base and the conscience of the Democratic Party. In my opinion, this surrender of principles began with Bill Clinton and the DLC. If the "liberals" do not stand up, then no one will...

[KoKo]

80. yes..and we keep trying to get that message out...

but somehow it goes off like the howls of wolves in the night.... Just noise.

[2banon]

30. Spot-On, Outstanding Commentary.

[AlbertCat]

31. one side is markedly better than the other; and no criticism of the leadership can be tolerated.

The 1st part of this is true.

But the second part is something that doesn't fly.... even with most members of the markedly better side.

I've never met anyone in person who insists Dems cannot be criticized. No doubt there are some, but, like the Teabaggers, they are a minority.

[conservaphobe]

35. Who? nt

[woo me with science]

40. Well the propaganda sure tries to foment blind partisanship.

The corrupt party leaders rely on a lot of ignorance out in the country of what actual Democratic policies are.

Our corporate Democratic politicians engage in constant, cynical, manipulative LYING about their own policies to the public, who are too busy working and struggling to survive to follow what the party is actually doing.

And there is a massive propaganda effort online to foment blind partisanship by focusing on evil Republicans, trying to divert from the fact that Democrats are pushing most of the same policies, and and giving the false impression that people are hunky dory with the ongoing wars and devastation of the 99 percent. This manipulative garbage targeted at Americans is one of the creepiest signs of how corrupt our political systems and government have become.

All countries that turn authoritarian attack real journalism and create propaganda machines. It's ugly as hell.

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

[BumRushDaShow]

45. "The Great Depression of the 1930s was awful,

but it set America on the path toward a period of shared prosperity."

-The rest of this sentence should be "for some".

The fantasizing about the Depression is mind-boggling and trying to twist it around to the present is silly. There are people today who would laugh in your face about any "shared prosperity" after FDR including those who were excluded (and continue to be excluded) from any "prosperity" or right to sit where they wanted, eat where they wanted, live where they wanted, love who they wanted, and vote for who they wanted.

If such "prosperity" existed, then why did this happen and continues to happen?



I think people need to realize that there is an insidious side to human nature and it is human nature to evolve into some sort of hierarchy. And whether that "top" is some "Council of Elders" or "head of a family clan", or is an elected politician, there is still a layer. Think about it - even within a household with parents and children - the parents are "in charge" and are not "equal to" the children until the children are grown (and even then, the parent still sees their child as their child).

And those who find they can have more and more with that status, tend to want to keep it. It doesn't matter what party you belong to or where in the world you evolved, the easy way is the status quo. This doesn't mean you can't try to do all you can to mitigate the situation, but unfortunately it is a part of the strong undercurrent of human nature.

[YoungDemCA]

58. Well said.

Thank you!

[grahamhgreen]

54. It still amazes me that Reid has not ended the filibuster.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. Some of this is the Democrats bragging that they can make Wall Street happier than Republicans.

[pansypoo53219]

67. democrats sold their soles to wall street after reagan. BIZNESS FRENDLEE.

[ancianita]

72. THIS. The best thing I've read here in a while. Wasserman-Schultz and Schumer can suck it.

Amen, brotha.

It's the Dem Party Leadership that let us down in this. They didn't focus on a "50 State Strategy" like Howard Dean did and they cut off their Left Activists from the moment Obama was elected leaving it to the Obama Activist Netroots to attack Republicans, Faux News and RW Internet Blogs plus silencing the Left of their own party rather than doing ground work refining the Democratic Message...

WE saw it but we still don't know how to undo it, whether it's because we lack leadership connections, access or money. The leadership sicken me.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

77. "dreadful news like this should be rocket fuel. For the Dems, however, it hasn’t been."

That's what I find so discouraging, like it's a complete lost cause. Decades of Reaganomics. The disastrous Dubya administration. Iraq/Afghanistan. Tax cuts. Economic collapse. And then...



I doubt I'll see that again in my lifetime.

What a wasted opportunity.

[AndyTiedye]

81. Rocket Fuel Does Us No Good When We Got No Rocket

There isn't really anything we can DO with that sort of news, when the other side controls the news.
Liberal democrats have been trying for decades. It sinks without a sound.
The "bully pulpit" is owned by the GOP, lock, stock and barrel.

Add to that the fact that parts of the country are so reactionary that the only Democrats that ever get elected there are "blue dogs"
and it's no surprise that our party has to compromise all the time.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

90. We have the rocket -- THE WHITE HOUSE.

The biggest bully pulpit of them all. If it was good enough for past presidents, it's good enough for Obama.

Hell, Obama (and Michelle) even have Twitter accounts to disseminate information. But the news "that median household wealth in this country fell by 36 percent in the 10-year period ending last year" can't all be blamed on Republicans. Corporate Democrats are complicit, and he's one of them.

Perhaps if Democrats didn't suck so hard at messaging, we wouldn't have to "compromise all the time."

[AndyTiedye]

97. The White House is Only as Much of a "Bully Pulpit" as the Media Allows it to Be

People constantly underestimate the power of the media and it continues to bite us in the ass.

[Uncle Joe]

85. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Proud Public Servant.

[blkmusclmachine]

91. Washington DC is a racket. Both Parties are BOUGHT.

[raindaddy]

93. So True And Thanks For Posting This PPS!!

Anyone still believing this is the same old school Democratic party that once derived it's power from the people and was passionate about the issues that affected the quality of life for poor and middle class Americans are either so locked into the "competition" between the Democrats and Republicans that they're blinded to the truth or part of the charade...

Either way, over the last thirty years we have watched while this country has degenerated from a Democratic Republic into an oligarchy. And how many prominent democrats have even mentioned the fact? There's your litmus test! Of course for moderate and conservative republicans this is a complete victory, but for a party the markets itself as "the party of the people" an utter and complete fail. They're failing at the very core of the reason for the privilege of having a (d) after their name, representing and "fighting" for the interests of the people they claim to represent. And the fact that we've allowed this failure to go on for over thirty says as much about those of us who still identify with the Democratic party as it does with the people we keep sending to DC to defend our interests.

[MrModerate]

95. This is a thought-provoking article, and quite detailed . . .

And my response is simpler than the article itself: Of course Jon Stewart isn't enough. Of course bad leadership must be called out and criticized. And of course "placing a progressive agenda" at the heart of a party need not be antithetical to a fight for "a party's soul."

But at the same time, we acknowledge that the other side, in the aggregate is vastly more damaging to the lives of our fellow citizens than those who call themselves Democrats but don't seem to behave that way.

So when it comes to elections, sometimes we have to hold our noses. And have faith that upon attaining ascendancy, that we can and will use that power to move our own partisans closer to a genuine "progressive agenda."

Call me Pollyanna, but the right wing scares me more than right-leaning Dems.

[Dustlawyer]

96. The Democrats get campaign contributions from corporations too, no real mystery here.

[slipslidingaway]

98. knr n/t

[raouldukelives]

100. Huge K&R! The most important vote we have today is our money and our time.

And whom we choose to give it too.