The words "Democrat" and "Republican" are pretty much meaningless

[Kelvin Mace]

outside the beltway and the media. The Democratic Party is generally made up of a sprinkling of genuine liberals, a majority block of the Center-Right (ultra pro-business), a shrinking number of "conservative Democrats" (i.e. what we used to call "conservative Republicans&quot and a sprinkling of delusional folk who think that the GOP can be reasoned with and will keep their word (The Democratic "leadership&quot .

On the GOP side you have 1/3 third paid stooges for the oligarchs (which includes the actual GOP leadership), 1/3 religiously insane Dominionists, and 1/3 barking mad, anti-government, racist teabaggers (who call the shots by preventing pretty much anything they don't agree with from getting done).

I am sure there is more than a little overlap amongst the groups on the Right.

From the Ted Cruz balcony, this translates as:

Genuine Liberals - Goddamn commie-hippie-Nazi liberals
Center Right Democrats - Goddamn commie liberals
Conservative Democrats - Goddamn socialist liberals
"Pragmatic/Bi-Partisan" Democrats - Goddamn liberals

Teabagger conservatives - Patriots™
Dominionist conservatives - God's Chosen People™
Oligarch conservative - Goddamn commie traitors working for the goddamn commie-hippie-Nazi liberals

The Overton Window is now so far to the right that if space/time is actually curved it is about to hit us in the back of the head.

[hifiguy]

1. All that is left are the Center and Hard Right wings of

The Money Party. The Center wing of the Money Party will boil the populace of frogs a little more slowly than will the Hard Right wing. They are both owned and completely controlled by the same masters and dance only to their tune.

[Thinkingabout]

6. I am owned by my own person, do not need a master, I am Democrat.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Joe Lieberman was a Democrat

Joe Manchin is a Democrat.
Mary Landrieu is a Democrat.
Kay Hagan is a Democrat.


There are a lot of "Democrats" out there that I want nothing to do with.

[Thinkingabout]

15. And there are Democrats I am not fond, using your criteria there would be several Democats I will

Not support.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Which is kind of my point

When I talk about a "liberal" candidate, being from the Left and being rather strident about the dictionary definition of the word, I am talking about a candidate who is:

Pro-women (and all related women's issues from pay to birth control)
Pro-gun control
Pro-infrastructure investment
Pro-progressive taxation
Pro-Environment
Pro-Green Energy
Pro-marriage equality
Pro-civil rights

etc.

However, there are a number of "Democrats" that are opposed to many of those views (and they lost badly in the last election). So as a "liberal", the term "Democrat" is meaningless to me, as is supporting the party who insists on supporting and RUNNING such people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. Uh WHAT????

Both sides are the same...EPIC FAIL!

If you cannot tell the difference you are NOT paying attention! But let them get all three branches....and even YOU will sing a different tune Left Leaning Independent!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. its not that they are the same, but there is no serious political left

there is a difference between centrism and radical right wing policies though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. then start one.....nobody is stopping you...IF your policies are SOOO exceptional....

and SOOO many agree with

No one is MAKING you vote for Democrats! There is no gun to your head...

I am a Liberal...in fact a Socialist Democrat...but I am also a REALIST....and understand...not everyone lives in a Blue State!

[Kelvin Mace]

42. So, your point of view

is pretty much we don't need you so go away?

Oh, THAT will turn out the base.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. no my point is why are we expected to be beholden to

The opinions of undependable fair weather friends.....


I on the other hand am loyal to my fellow Democrats...WE decide the direction of our party....not thosr who seek to expect fealty to their "do it our way or we wont vote" threats.. Its nothing more than extortion...

[Kelvin Mace]

45. So,

your criteria for loyalty is a label?

Cool.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. Am I ashamed of BEING a Democrat?

Nope....

Its not a label...its my honor..

[Kelvin Mace]

48. And that is why we lose.

Can you tell me what these "honorable" Democrats have in common?

Howell Heflin
Dennis DeConcini
Sam Nunn
Wyche Fowler
Alan Dixon
Bennett Johnston, Jr.
John Breaux
James Exon
David Boren
Ernest Hollings
Chuck Robb

I'll give you a clue: They were critical to voting in Thurgood Marshall's replacement on the Supreme Court.

What good are Vichy Democrats?

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. you dare come here and talk that way about Actual Democrats

While you are not one and expect Respect? ....not getting it from me...you can move along....

[bobduca]

55. Says the Poster Child for "Respect"

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. I RESPECT Democrats on Democratic Underground...Not Left Leaning Independents....

they haven't earned it...

Especially those that spout that Third Way Nonsense.....as if there are scores of those on DU....

and then have a sad because they are not getting respect....BOO HOO!

[bobduca]

63. they "have a sad" because they had to read your drivel

Your behavior on this site is purposefully over-the-top ridiculous.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. says the Left Leaning Independent

boo hooo hoooo!

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. Says the Left Leaning Independent....you don't get to define my "Democratness"

Your insults mean jack shit to me....

to you I say...

[stevenleser]

77. Looks like someone has earned themselves a several week timeout. Whats interesting is...

I was on that jury that voted 7-0 to hide. I then noticed that this poster had his transparency page exposed.

I can never resist looking at past hides when I see someone's transparency page exposed and for a couple of reasons. One of which is, I want to see if all the hides are fair and thus their timeout is fully earned. In this case, I noted this particular post that was hidden http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5611560 which attacked me in a discussion where I hadn't even posted in the OP and incorrectly identified me as a contributor for a particular network, which I am not. A contributor is a specific term in media that connotes paid employee, which I am not. I am not an employee of any television network, nor does any television network pay me for appearances. But it is interesting that this person attacked me in a conversation in which I was not participating. I would never have seen that post had this person not attacked you and I was not called to be a juror.

Someone who goes out of their way to attack another DUer not even participating in a discussion, well, let's just say admins should examine whether that kind of a person belongs here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. I agree....their attacks are getting more and more ridiculous...

[Bobbie Jo]

85. Not his first time-out, either.

I'm not sure how many forced vacations one gets before admin says enough is enough.

At any rate, this one has a well-established pattern.

Good hide, good jury.

[Cha]

87. wow.. lol, look who's talked about "divisive bullshit"!

[Kelvin Mace]

69. Yes, I do

because conscience prohibits me from praising and supporting people who routinely betray us for matter of political expediency and avarice.

Sorry this pisses you off, By your logic, all Ted Cruz would have to do to get you to be loyal to him would be to join the Democratic party. Sadly, there are Dems, especially of the paid consultant variety, who would see this as a "win".

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. but see if you are a Left Leaning Independent that won't vote for whomever wins the Primary

you are not one of US!

EVEN Bernie Sanders WILL vote for whomever wins the Primary...FACT!

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. people not voting is why we lose midterms

That changes in the General so dont get do pleased with your little theory that there are so many left leaming independents...that you all made the difference. Thats malarkey....

[AgingAmerican]

58. Independents aren't Democrats

...and the DEMOCRATIC party needs to stop trying to kiss up to them, at the expense of their base.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. No Independents are not

[Kelvin Mace]

65. People don't vote on the left unless they

are motivated by the party. In the Presidential elections, when the nominees runs on and makes a case for liberal policy, they win more often than lose. After the election, they pivot back to the right and piss off the people who just voted for them, which shows up in the midterms. When Democrats run as conservatives, they lose (which is why the "Blue Dog" coalition is almost extinct).

You are looking at the wins and loses in isolation to the whole picture, just as climate change deniers look at the temp changes. They see "cooling periods and say "See, the planet is not warming" and look at warming spikes and claim "Sunspots". Climate change supporters look at the TREND.

Individual elections are meaningless in isolation, it is the TREND that matters, and the TREND since Carter has been constant movement to the right. Democrats, rather than dragging the country back to the left by making forceful arguments for progressive policies and their long history of success (and the right's long history of failure) have been co-opted by either money, self-destructive bi-partisan fetishism, or blind loyalty to labels. By your logic Andrew Cuomo is a Democrat, therefore we MUST support him because he is a Democrat.

The results are consistently predictable. Yeah, Cuomo was one of the few victories, but he promptly colluded with the GOP to give them control.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. baloney....

But if that is your major malfunction....then get out there and get better candidates....

They don't just sprout from the ground you know....you don't like what is there....then find some that suit you and stop belly aching.

[Kelvin Mace]

73. So, since my opinion does not conform to what YOU believe it should be

I should go away.

Anyone upset at being betrayed by the party is to shut up and vote for any Democrat we are told to, no matter how odious he/she is.

You know, there are thousands of other threads on this board you can read. As you don't like what I say, perhaps you should go to another thread that suits you and stop your bellyaching. I have it on excellent authority that this is an effective strategy.

Yeah, I think we are done. Good day, sir.

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. Yeah...GOOD DAY INDEED!

.you weren't betrayed....there was an election...WE didn't show up.its as simple as that...

[treestar]

67. Yes. There is a contingent who demands the rest of the party beg them to join

I guess to get attention.

Not going to happen. Candidates will reach out to likely voters, not people who threaten not to vote.

So if the Democrats really don't do it for you, quit demanding they beg you and start another party. It'll be more effective. The Democrats don't have time to "woo" you and aren't going to.

These people are not the base. The base never threatens not to vote. It if the very definition of the base that they don't have to be "wooed."

[Kelvin Mace]

74. Just for the record,

I have never threatened not to vote.

So if the Democrats really don't do it for you, quit demanding they beg you and start another party. It'll be more effective. The Democrats don't have time to "woo" you and aren't going to.

The entire point of my original post was in the title:

The words "Democrat" and "Republican" are pretty much meaningless

I then discuss division in the parties and why labels are meaningless and how the assumption that all Democratic candidates must be supported since they are Democrats is a self-defeating strategy.

Please show me where I "demand" anyone "beg" me to do anything.

Nowhere do I tell people not to vote. Nowhere do I tell people to form another party. If you can point to somewhere I did, then by all means do so, and I will retract it and apologize.

It is apparently considered by some on this board an egregious mortal sin to DARE to question Democratic orthodoxy. Apparently the Democratic Party mission has become "STFU and clap harder, asshole. And send money. And if you dare question holy writ, then go away we don't want you."

Yeah, that will win elections.

[treestar]

75. No that is not what the Democrats do

If you are a Democrat, you are part of the party. One Democrat sitting somewhere demanding the other Democrats do things differently will only work if you are persuasive. And then it has to work. Democrats do win elections. It is not meaningless. To start, had Mittens won the election in 2012, a lot of things would be very different.

There are so many posts on this board trying to undermine the Democratic party and claim it is not good enough. More than the Republicans! Republicans win elections too, in case you haven't noticed. That is where the voters are in general in this country.

Claiming the Democrats are no different from the Republicans is worse than the way the right wingers claim there is no difference between Democrats and Communists. At least they attack the other side and not their own.

[Kelvin Mace]

83. Again, didn't say it

Claiming the Democrats are no different from the Republicans

Again, please point to where I claim this.

Here is what I have actually WRITTEN where the word "different/difference" is used:

"Now, if you want to talk about the differences between specific Democrats, like say Al Franken and Kay Hagan, well then certainly, they are as different as night and day, but when you look at the parties as a whole it is Center-Right pro-business versus howling mad right-wing neo-fascists. A socially liberal Democrat doesn't do me much good when they are to the Right of Nixon on the security state, foreign policy and low taxes for the 1% and favor cutting unemployment, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid."

"There are differences, but no matter which party is elected, the country keeps moving to the right overall."

"I referred to the words/labels "Democrat" and "Republican" as being "meaningless", not the parties. A subtle, nuanced, but VERY distinct difference."

"I make considerable issue about the "differences" between the parties."

"There ARE differences, but on the whole, the country has continued to move to the right, even when snatching the occasional progressive victory (like electing a Black president or overturning anti-gay laws)."

Nope, cannot find any place were I write that there is "no difference" between Democrats and Republicans. Also, please note that my use of the word "different/difference" mostly appears in rebuttals to people claiming I wrote that which I did NOT write.

At least they attack the other side and not their own.

Seriously? The GOP crazies turn on each other all the time. When one of our candidates turns rabid (like say, Andrew Cuomo) some people here are quick to tell folk who point this out to shut up and pull the D lever or get out we don't need you or your stinking vote.

Democrats do win elections.

Yes, they do, mostly by running on liberal policies. And when they pivot and betray those policies after being elected they tend to lose. Ask Kay Hagan. Despite being in a state that is trending blue, she lost because she alienated that base by "reaching across the aisle to my colleagues on the right" and helping them destroy the very policies the people who voted for her believed in.

We need Democrats who give us a reason to vote FOR them, not AGAINST Republicans. one is a winning strategy, the other a cynical death spiral for Democracy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. and that is because elections have consequences....and SOME stay home intentionally....

and then we lose ground again!

Bernie Sanders on the Thom Hartmann show on April 2nd said...."WE MUST defend the progress we HAVE made"...

WE didn't.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

91. what with the random aggression? i am articulating a point of view many democrats feel

which is supported by the terrible turnout from the left in elections, as they believe no one is articulating their positions

[hifiguy]

7. Here's a little list compiled by DUer woo me with science

and it speaks for itself.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. that is just a bunch of lines of text that someone believes...

PROVE it....

and I will prove you wrong with this...

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

and by the way there ARE some Left Leaning Independents on this board. Might want to listen to Democrats about Democrats...mkay?

[hifiguy]

11. Well, isn't that special.

And the platform means less than toilet paper unless elected officials actually, ya know, try to implement it. Every bit of woo's list can be referenced and sourced right here on the happy old internet and I challenge yu to refute, by way of a documented action, one thing on it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. then tell him to do it....

Source it...or else its just opinion!

[Odin2005]

34. LOL, yes, I as going to follow a piece of paper rather than how...

...the vast majority of Dem politicians actually vote!

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. because you arent one

Even my Min Pin can see that....

[treestar]

70. Then start a party with a litmus test of that list

And good luck.

Though most of it is not true. Or contains standards no country could exist with.

[emulatorloo]

79. Woo also claims republicans ran Paul Ryan as VP to ensure Obama won

Picking Ryan was a secret plot by Republicans to make sure Obama won in 2012.

He has many other interesting 'theories' along those lines.

So personally I don't find him credible.

[Bobbie Jo]

88. ^^This^^

Except, you're being too kind.

[arcane1]

10. I read the OP three times and didn't get anything like that from it.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. That is happening by degrees

The choice between the parties is a like choosing which cancer you want to die from. Dying is dying, but there is the question of how fast and how painful.

Also, where did I say "both parties are the same".

Please point that out. The only place I even come close to that is my explanation of how Ted Cruz sees Democrats.

Now, if you want to talk about the differences between specific Democrats, like say Al Franken and Kay Hagan, well then certainly, they are as different as night and day, but when you look at the parties as a whole it is Center-Right pro-business versus howling mad right-wing neo-fascists. A socially liberal Democrat doesn't do me much good when they are to the Right of Nixon on the security state, foreign policy and low taxes for the 1% and favor cutting unemployment, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

What I wouldn't give to be able to vote for an Eisenhower Republican who believes in a 92% top tax rate and makes hippie remarks about the "military-undustrial complex".

[Odin2005]

32. Reading comprehension fail.

Or maybe you are just too conditioned by the DLC to not throw a fit when showed that the Democratic Party has been taken over by corporate tools.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Wasn't sure where you were going, after hearing today "what" Democrats

Believe, think and do (I had heard them from Rush) from a RW I thought this could not happen in one day. Did enjoy, I have been a Democrat all if my life and I really think by now I know what I believe and do, it isn't what the RW thinks. Poor RW meds to start enjoying life.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. What our enemies think

and do is kind of germane, especially since they control the majority of the levers of power. The beatings will continue until we stop supporting candidates who will NOT stand up for true liberalism. Hell Webb is talking about running, and actual former Republican turned Not So Republican and some folk around here are acting like it is the Second Coming.

Yeah, nominate him and watch the liberal base stay home.

[Thinkingabout]

19. Do you think a candidate which pleases the far left is going to please other

Democrats?

[Kelvin Mace]

22. "far left"

Please define.

My point is that the GOP sees EVERYONE with the label "Democrat" as "far left", but by any objective analysis of the policies, Eisenhower and Nixon would qualify as "far left" with these people.

Also, and maybe I am being naive here, but I think a candidate who wishes to win elections should worry about pleasing VOTERS, not other "Democrats".

[Thinkingabout]

24. Are you center left?

[Kelvin Mace]

33. No, very left,

in my opinion, but that is not a very meaningful statement given the disagreement over what would constitute being "to the left".

Some say that my support of a top tax bracket of 90% would make me practically a Communist, yet Eisenhower had no problem with it. I am DEEPLY suspicious of the military and defense contractors which makes me a Stalin-kissing Commie in some people's eyes, but again, so was Eisenhower. The political definition of the "middle" has shifted so far right that practically any sensible view of government can be viewed as "far left". Hell, these days, any bit of poorly-written satire is almost indiscernible from "mainstream" conservative orthodoxy.

The whole point of my post was to get people to understand the "Democrat" and "Republican" are meaningless terms in today's political landscape.

[Thinkingabout]

35. But you have described yourself as very left, not every Democrat is far left, I dont consider myself

Far left, ergo I probably do not agree on issues you may, doesn't make you rich and myself wrong and I would not expect to support every candidate you may back and this goes both ways.

[Kelvin Mace]

40. Again, we might sit down and compare notes and discover we are

not that far apart (or we might have a Marianas Trench between us). The problem is compromise now only goes one way, to the right. I certainly understand the argument for "pragmatism" and voting for the lesser of two evils, as long as no one deludes themselves about the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil. This party used to have a lot of "Blue Dog Democrats", but they are now mostly extinct, replaced by genuine conservative loons. Why? Well, my theory is that people on the "left", you know they anti-torture, anti-war, anti-profiteering, anti-corporate, anti-death penalty, anti-pollution crowd, got fed up voting for candidates who supported torture, war, profiteering, the death penalty, and "cheap oil at any price no matter who we have to kill or if we burn the planet down to get it".

There comes a point where the candidates cross a line and my choice as a voter is between being a supporter and an being an accessory before the fact.

People are starting to refuse to cross that line and really resent being attacked for their decision.

[Thinkingabout]

53. It may not surprise you but I see poison in different directions, when ut gets down

To the final decision I weigh the overall record and stand on the issues.

[tabasco]

9. Your post is pretty much meaningless

[Thinkingabout]

20. Sorry it was too difficult for you to understand.

[LawDeeDah]

12. What garbage.

As much as I dislike and come close to loathing some that have the nerve to call themselves Democrats, on the whole they are keeping at bay the hungry wolves in McTurtle clothing. What utter nonsense.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. So, they are keeping MAJORITY Leader McConnel at bay?

That pressure on your throat is the wolf about to tear it out.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. You noticed that too?

Man some people are really PISSED that I am saying that the term "Democrat" is meaningless in today's political context.

Re: the word "Democrat", I quote Inigo Montoya:



(and by "you" I mean "them&quot

[irisblue]

25. No

I disagree with your premise.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. Irisblue?

Thank you.

You are the first person in a long time to just disagree in an agreeable manner. You have restored some of my faith in humanity.

[irisblue]

29. You're welcome

I really really want conversation and learning.

[Smarmie Doofus]

26. You've got it pretty much down.

In NYS there's very little difference.

Cuomo partners with the GOP to keep senate in GOP hands.

It's all pay for play.

One-party state. "The Money Party."

Paler version of same seems to prevail nationally.

One looks to the "sprinkling" of real "liberals".

A drop of rain... here and there... in the desert.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Thanks

I forgot about Cuomo, the poster child for this problem.

[msanthrope]

30. No--they aren't...look at POTUS now. n t

[baldguy]

31. That is precisely the kind of thinking

that has led to 30 yrs of RW GOP political dominance, in spite of being the minority party.

Anyone who says there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans is fucking insane.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. Not what I said.

Please point to where I said "there is no difference".

There are differences, but no matter which party is elected, the country keeps moving to the right overall. Sure we got healthcare reform, but only by dealing in the corporations (actually letting them deal themselves in). And while we have made strides on marriage equality and LGBT rights, we have seen massive erosion in women's reproductive rights. It was great that we elected a Black president, but then the racists came out of the shadows and acts of overt bigotry once considered "political career enders" are now tolerated as normal. Jesse Helms was once the fringe, now he would be the mainstream sliding toward liberalism in the twisted ideology of the Right and even the corporate media.

Democracy in this country is essentially dead and we live in a de facto police state, but stating that obvious truth is one of the few things that will get you tagged an "extremist" these days.

[baldguy]

39. Seems you don't understand the meaning of the word "meaningless".

[Kelvin Mace]

41. I refered to the words/labels "Democrat" and "Republican"

as being "meaningless", not the parties. A subtle, nuanced, but VERY distinct difference. I then argued that the meaningless of the words meant that the parties are drifting in the same direction, to the right.

One more time, where did I say there was "no difference" between the parties?

[treestar]

72. It moves to the left overall

In the long run.

People get tunnel vision where they see only what they want to see and in some cases people only want to see the negative.

Think about what the right wants. From their view, they are not getting it and are losing more and more each decade. They will never get abortion illegal again. They are losing on gay marriage. None of their efforts have helped, and more and more states have it now. There is more and more religious diversity and people get less religious.

Average couples live together before getting married and that's become normal. They are up against that. They'll never see their ideal again on that.

Not only is there still Medicaid and Social Security, now there is the ACA. They know they can't get rid of a program once it starts. Even Bush with a Republican Congress didn't repeal any existing social program of significance.

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Sorry, I must respectfully disagree

we have been moving right for 40 years. Yes, we may take a couple of steps left now and again, but the march has been steadily to the right for 40 years. As I point out in another post on this thread, every Supreme Court justice has been more conservative than the one he/she replaced. Thurgood Marshall, arguably the most liberal Justice ever, was replaced by CLARENCE THOMAS, arguably the most reactionary justice since Roger Taney of Dred Scott fame. Thomas was appointed with the help of ELEVEN Democrats.

Yes, it is nice that gay couples can now marry in more and more states, but at the same time, women's reproductive rights are on their way back to the 19th Century. It's great that we got the ACA, despite its numerous shortcomings, but soon the SCOTUS will destroy it because the court has people like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy on it, Justices confirmed by Democrats. Each of those justice was more conservative than the one who proceeded them.

It's nice that we wound down the War in Iraq, except that we are winding it back up again, and we are off to military adventure in Syria, and have Dems who, when push come to shove, will support war with Iran. Sure we got Sarbane-Oxley, but we also got rid of Glass-Steagall. We MIGHT get a beneficial Net Neutrality ruling from the FCC, but the CIA/NSA/FBI et al, are spying on us with impunity.

We elected a Black president!! How progressive of us. Except that racism is making a SERIOUS come back, and is now being normalized in society. And do we really want to discuss how much ground we have lost on gun control, taxation, education, welfare programs, unemployment compensation, banking regulation, infrastructure investment, prison reform, law enforcement misconduct, pension protection, union rights and environmental protection?

[MineralMan]

36. Bullshit. Al Franken. Mitch McConnell.

Democrat. Republican.

I rest my case.

[Kelvin Mace]

44. OK

Al Franken. Mitch McConnel.

Liberal. Conservative.

Mary Landreu - Democrat
Andrew Cuomo - Democrat
Kay Hagan - Democrat
Joe Manchin - Democrat
Heath Shuler - Democrat
Joe Lieberman - Democrat

At best, "Republican" means "some kind of foaming at the mouth right-wing extremist".

"Democrat" can mean anything from LBJ/Great Society liberal to "some kind of right-wing extremist who is careful to wipe the foam from his mouth when running in the primaries".

When we run as liberals we win. When we run as conservatives we lose.

By and large, the Democratic Party of today is DISTINCTLY to the right of LBJ in every way except illegally invading countries and getting mired in unwinnable wars.

[stevenleser]

82. Joe Lieberman is an excellent point, against you. He had to go independent at the end.

Because he did not win the Democratic nomination because voters in his state thought he had gone too far to the right.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. Right, and how many Democrats

helped him do this? Also, he was a Democrat who had REPEATEDLY knifed the liberal wing, especially women and anti-war advocates in the back. Lieberman was so highly thought of by the Democratic leadership that they made him Gore's running mate!

Lieberman SUPPORTED McCain, and the Dems REFUSED to strip him of his committee chairmanships.

Also, the Dem leadership got behind Lieberman in the primary, despite his disloyalty. Clinton campaigned for him.

But, fine, let's say I am wrong about Lieberman, what about the other folk, like Andrew Cuomo?

[bhikkhu]

38. Well, that's one of the stupidest things I've read lately

Not to argue that there hasn't been some "mission shift", but the parties are starkly different in the actual legislation, leading to actual implementation of policies, that they advocate. Congress, having gotten little to nothing done since 2010, doesn't make it easy to see the differences, but they are still very real.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Once again,

please READ what I said.

The title of my post is:

The words "Democrat" and "Republican" are pretty much meaningless

I make considerable issue about the "differences" between the parties. Democrats come in several flavors:

Liberal
Greedy tools of corporate America
Clueless
Conservative

Republicans come in two flavors:

Crazy with religious or Anti-Government sprinkles
Greedy tools of corporate America

There ARE differences, but on the whole, the country has continued to move to the right, even when snatching the occasional progressive victory (like electing a Black president or overturning anti-gay laws). How about naming ONE Supreme Court justice appointed in the last, ummmm, let's say 40 years, who was to the LEFT of the justice he/she replaced. Seen any Thurgood Marshall's of late? Right, he was replaced with CLARENCE THOMAS, a justice so far to the right that he qualifies in quantum physics as an "anti-Thurgood Marshall" particle. A Democrat (Dennis Deconcini) on the Judiciary committee voted for him, and ELEVEN Democrats helped confirm him in the senate.

If we wound Marhsall's corpse with copper wire he would generate enough power to run all of Washington every time Clarence Thomas rules with the majority. And we owe it all to eleven Democrats.

[ZombieHorde]

54. They are very similar on many issues, but

on some issues, like marriage equality and political nominations, they are very much different, in my opinion. Politics is largely about values, and different people have different values, so I respect and understand why people disagree on the degree of differences between the parties.

There is also some tribalism involved. I know I have an anti-Republican bias, and I believe this bias clouds my critical thinking sometimes.

[nomorenomore08]

56. Well said. n/t

[Rex]

57. Seriously, peal away the layer of corporate ownership and you find they are still very different.

First off, the Democratic party moved forward after the turn of the century. The GOP, however went backwards from the Reagan Era toward the 1950s. They went backwards socially. Dems have moved social issues forward, while red states have passed horrible laws against women again taking them back even further. I would say the GOP has regressed a lot from the days of the neo/paleo con.

The biggest appeal is that only one party moves forward. The other fights constantly to stop progress and move back to a traditional era where men could still legally burn witches.

Sorry but the canard that 'both parties are the same' is just not true. Again, what they do have in common is corporate donors having too much control over their jobs.

Ted Cruz is a great example of the new type of republican, twice as incompetent and three times as stupid as the old neo-con.

[emulatorloo]

80. Well said.

[Rex]

90. Never thought I would pine for the GOP to be ruled by neo-cons again

Did you ever think there would be a group of republicans that were so bad, that you actually wish the neo-cons were back in control? That's saying a lot coming from me, anyone that has ever seen my posts knows how little regard or respect I have for the GOP.

[Orsino]

61. Citizens United is erasing the distinction. n/t

[Scuba]

62. If by "Democratic Party" you mean "Democratic Party leadership", I agree.

[tuhaybey]

86. The results the parties see are night and day different

I get that the two parties may be similar in both being to the right of dedicated liberals, but the differences between the parties remain stark, especially when you look at the results their policies achieve. For example, look at how our GDP grows under the parties. Our GDP has grown, on average, 5.2% per year when Democrats have controlled both the legislature and the executive, 2.9% when control has been split between the parties, and we have actually lost 0.8% of our GDP on average when Republicans have controlled both the legislature and the executive branch (although that sample size is perhaps too small to draw much of a conclusion from that).

IMO, trying to distinguish between the parties just based on whether they share your views exactly on a particular topic is missing the boat. They differ on much more fundamental levels, like adherence to reason. The economic performance would seem to be the result of Democrats listening to economists and maybe more importantly, not doing batshit crazy stuff like threatening to default and so forth. But, you see that on almost all issues. Republicans are basically ready to cast science itself out. They constantly wrap themselves up in conspiracy theory. The fact that there is no statistical support at all for their voter ID crusade doesn't even occur to them as something worth looking into.

I mean, sure, I would like for the Democrats to move a bit to the left myself, but minimizing the massive and very real differences between the parties is not a good way to express that.

[Kelvin Mace]

89. And I agree with you completely

but that was not the central point of my post, which was titled:

The words "Democrat" and "Republican" are pretty much meaningless

(Before you read the next sentence let me assure you that I am expressing frustration at other posters who dissented with my view in a distinctly uncivil manner, in complete contrast to your civil and polite counterpoint)

I find it very depressing that folks seem to read part of something I write, develop a visceral reaction to what they infer that I wrote, (as opposed to what I actually wrote) then proceed to berate and abuse me for having views they hotly contest, that I do not actually hold.