The DNC Comes Full Circle

[Le Taz Hot]

The original purpose of the DNC was to function as a central organization, or hub, to which field organizations could connect with the national party. The DNC was to represent the Democratic Party . They were there to get Democrats elected, get out the Democratic Party message, run candidates for office and to raise money for campaigns.

The 1990's saw the DNC's Third-Way conversion under the Clintons. The reason was that the Democrats were losing the fundraising battle by a 3:1 margin. Their answer was to abandon the New Deal's tenet for representing the poor and middle class in order to make nice with the corporations and their millions. Glass-Steagal: Gone; NAFTA: enacted; Welfare "Reform": Enacted. All benefited the .01% and hurt the poor and the middle class. Sadly, that trend continues today (TPP).

Fast forward to 2015/2016. After 30 years of Third-Way policies, where is the DNC? Under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats and the Senate. They are again losing the fundraising race by a 3:1 margin. So, the DNC managed to sell their souls, and ours, for nothing -- they're back where they started.

And after all those failures, DWS still has her job. I've spoken with die-hard, and I. mean DIE-HARD Democrats who are furious with her. Communications to/about the DNC is overwhelmingly negative. Her VP's have spoken out against her autonomy and her obvious bias towards one particular candidate. People are still livid about her debate schedule which has been severely counter-productive to the DNC , so, why is she still there? There's only one possible answer and that is that certain important people want her there. If that doesn't speak loud and clear as to what has happened to the Democratic Party I don't know what does. This is it. The Democratic Party needs to make a decision. Will they continue with The Third Way, representing the .01%, or will they start representing We The People again, as they once did? For those of us who are unrepresented in the Halls of Congress, let's hope they find their way back to us, otherwise, they'll go down in history as the architects of their own demise.

[daleanime]

1. K&R....

[lewebley3]

21. Wrong the DNC has many functions: and they are very important

The DNC is standing up against Sanders bullies

[floriduck]

26. Please share their many functions with us. nm

[lewebley3]

28. Why don't you crack a party History book: No time tutor

[floriduck]

30. Because you brought it up. So share

or retract your statement. Don't tell me you pulled that out of your hat. And while your at it, how have their many functions helped the majority of Democrats?

[Phlem]

32. Basically you don't have shit.

I've read your post, you don't even know which side's up.

So are you the party's mouthpiece? I wouldn't be surprised.

[merrily]

128. Derails the thread pretty quickly though.

Where is woo me with science when we really need her?

[lewebley3]

190. I do: you just don't agree with it: Your a Sander supporter

[Phlem]

201. uh huh.

OK thirdway.

[floriduck]

44. Let this be a lesson

to posters who are imposters. This is just one more example of someone throwing shit against the wall and getting called out. It's embarrassing at the least and dishonest at best. From now on, when you participate in these discussions, bring something of value.

[SCantiGOP]

50. to Phlem and floriduck

Go back and read your responses. Do you get any idea why so many folks in the Clinton camp are getting increasingly hostile to the Sanders supporters here? Do you think your actions may be counterproductive and are driving some away from your candidate?

As has been noted in other threads, a paraphrase of Gandhi's famous comment about Christianity may be appropriate:

I really admire Senator Sanders; it is some of his supporters I have trouble with.

[floriduck]

52. Are you supporting the practice

Of making crap up just to get a jab in on threads. Shouldn't there be some value added when this is done. Maybe the poster will think twice before making crap up in the future.

I'm sorry you view this as you do. But this happens regularly on both sides of the fence. You might see it more from Sanders supporters because we outnumber the Hill people by 6:1.

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. So you think that was hostile?

I would like MIRT to keep an eye on this potential troll. He has infiltrated a lot of threads on DU with his broken English one-liner flame baits like the one he started with in here:

"The DNC is standing up against Sanders bullies"

Nobody goaded this person into stating that little flame. And when someone simply asks for some kind of proof, they are in your opinion "counterrproductive"?

There are over-the-top Sanders fans just as there are in Hillary's camp. I too have trouble with the ones on the fringes where no candidate is radical enough for them, or conversely is too radical a shift from the status quo and get into debates that quickly turn into personal attacks. But I fail to see why anyone would base their vote on how nice or badly some supporter from one camp or the other treated them on a message board.

[hifiguy]

96. + 1. nt

[JDPriestly]

81. When Hillary fans criticize posts by Sanders fans, they should be willing to

elaborate and explain their criticisms.

It seems that a lot of Hillary fans are just slogan-repeaters. Their posts reveal that they like Hillary, but they cannot articulate just why they like her.

They think that social issues are important but don't understand the link between social issues and economic issues. The two go hand in hand. Real social progress can only happen if we have economic progress too. It's very nice that LGBT people can marry. That is their basic right. But they need equal opportunity in the workplace too.

Bernie is utterly right about reform of the banking, financial, Wall Street sector of our economy. I have read only maybe one half-way articulate, intelligent criticism of a Bernie stance by any Hilllary supporter.

I'm beginning to think that Hillary supporters just are not intelligent and well-spoken enough to explain why they support her.

The posts by Hillary supporters tend to be simply jibes with no reasoning or logic or facts supporting them.

It's very frustrating to read a post like the jibe with no substance above that has set off this discussion and then watch Hillary supporters take off with insults an Bernie supporters -- and never explaining, never elaborating, never articulating just what their beef really is.

Read the history is a non-response. It's an excuse of a post. It's an attempt to look like participation in the discussion, a taking up of bandwidth without adding or saying anything.

It's insulting. Poor Hillary. Her supporters seem to have limited knowledge and even more limited IQs. Well. Poor Hillary.

Fact is, the OP tells the story of the evolution of the Democratic Party from a Party of, for and by the people to a party of, for and by a certain wealthy elite quite well.

FDR helped unions. Hillary helps banks. Sanders is a return to the Democratic Party of FDR. That's why I support Sanders. And that is why I agree strongly with the OP.

[hifiguy]

85. . . .

[appal_jack]

88. Nicely-stated, JDPriestly. K&R, nt.

[libdem4life]

110. Ouch. But it's what I've watched in decades of Democratic evolution. We're a long way from

McGovern. It cuts both ways, I fear.

[billhicks76]

132. Don't Forget The Sock-Puppets Too

[cui bono]

99. As if Hillary fans don't insult Sanders supporters. Most vocal ones on DU do and they don't bother

to talk about policy at all. They make false accusations against us and they even set up a website for the sole purpose of hating on us and Sanders. If you don't know about it you can find a lot of info about it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=647936

I'm so sick of being lectured by Hillary supporters when all you have to do is look at posts by them to see they are full of hatred towards Bernie and his supporters. Hell, we've been called white supremacists!

As to the person that was being replied to, that person comes off like a paid troll. NOT ONCE have they offered any substance in their posts. Almost every post of theirs is an insult to Bernie except when they are slandering Thom Hartmann with total lies. They really don't belong on DU at all with their nonsense. Thom Hartmann is a national treasure, especially to the Democratic Party. He is the most fair person on the radio and yet this person insists on lying about him and what he says. They are CONSTANTLY asked to back up what they say and they NEVER do.

So it's completely understandable for people to lose their patience with that poster. And why did you not chastise that poster for saying what they did about "Sanders bullies"? Why did you not tell them they should provide evidence of what they said lest they shed a bad light on Hillary supporters?

So fucking sick of this one-sided bullshit. It's a fucking talking point that the Hillary camp keeps pushing and it's just not true that any of it is one-sided. There are assholes among both candidate's supporters. Deal with it. We have to.

.

[hifiguy]

104. Bravo! Bravissimo!!

[cui bono]

112. Enough is enough!

Dammit.



.

[merrily]

129. Zero evidence that Ghandi said that.

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 06:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Also, you should care what drives voters away from your own candidate. Not as though Hillary's supporters have been paragons of virtue.

[SCantiGOP]

147. Gahndi's quote

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

[merrily]

148. What part of There's zero evidence that Ghandi ever said that was unclear?

I know the quote. I know it wasn't about Bernie Sanders. However, there's no evidence Ghandi ever said that.

[SCantiGOP]

152. You really need to change your screen name

Is there any reason your comments are so confrontational and unpleasant?
You can be the poster child of why a lot of Bernie supporters really turn people off and probably hurt their candidate.
Respond if you wish but I won't see it since you're on the Ignore list.

And take a chill pill.

[merrily]

153. My posts are nothing compared to the posts of Hillary supporters, including you.

In this case, I had said there was no evidence those were Ghandi's words. Nothing confrontational

Your reply was to repeat they were Ghandi's words. What was my response supposed to be?

I could have said 40 things that were worse than what I said. All I said was, what part of what I said before was unclear? No attack. Nothing disparaging about you or all your posts. Your reply to me was far worse than what I posted to you.

The holier than thou and aggrieved victim stuff from Hillary supporters is wearing so thin it's transparent.

[jeff47]

176. Are you talking to a mirror?

Take your own advice before you start lecturing others.

As for the quote, there is, in fact, zero evidence it was said by Ghandi.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time.

As quoted by William Rees-Mogg in The Times [London] (4 April 2005) {not found}. Gandhi here makes reference to a statement of Jesus: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13); also partly quoted in Christianity in the Crosshairs: Real Life Solutions Discovered in the Line of Fire (2004, p. 74 books.google) by Bill Wilson.

A variation is found in Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal & Gandhi Research Foundation's website mkgandhi.org. Christian missionary E. Stanley Jones, who spent much time with Gandhi in India, is said to have askedː “Mr Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is it that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?". To this, Gandhi is said to have repliedː “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ”. Jones would write a book called "Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation" (1948), where he included excerpts of his personal correspondance with Gandhi.

No further sources for Gandhi have been yet found; but a A similar quote is attributed to Bara Dadaː "Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians -- you are not like him." Source - Jones, E. Stanley. The Christ of the Indian Road, New York: The Abingdon Press,1925. (Page 114)

[Phlem]

175. WTF is this?

More cluelessness. I'm not a Christian and this comment doesn't fall into context.

Today is a good day. One person on full ignore and maybe a whole lot more.

[Phlem]

174. I could care less what you think.

Bernie has zero to little coverage and I'm supposed to shut up and let his bile and lies float? I don't think so especially when they give as good as they get.

This whole fucking thing started when people shoving Hillary down our throats even before Bernie.

I will not sit silently by while the crime of Hillary Becoming POTUS happens.

NO!

You know where you can stick your opinion.

[lewebley3]

188. No you just don't agree with me: You start with what you want to believe,

Sorry their people in the world!

[hifiguy]

195. Your syntax is, let us call it "interesting."

[lewebley3]

197. Checkmate: have a nice day

[DisgustipatedinCA]

198. Whose people in the world? !! ?

[JDPriestly]

80. The OP clearly describes the Party's history since 1980, actually maybe 1968

for those old enough to remember and not have to read a book about it.

Please explain your understanding of the Democratic Party's history in recent years?

Why didn't Obama go right away to support the working, union protesters in Wisconsin?

I thought that was one of the lowest points in the history of the Democratic Party -- to refuse to fight for union rights in that situation.

[merrily]

127. LOL! Party history book. LOL! The hits keep coming.

[virtualobserver]

179. apparently, you have time to assert things without backing them up

[lewebley3]

183. I can assert and I do: I and I do it with education: some

education can be useful, then you can asset too, and then you
won't have to ask others to do your homework for you

Granted you may not agreed with my assertions.

[virtualobserver]

184. you don't provide us with any actual information....assertion requires no education

if you don't back up your assertions, then you have no credibility

[daleanime]

27. Performance art hits all time high....

those dang "Sanders bullies" destroying our oligarchy with $27 donations.

[AzDar]

49. ...

[hifiguy]

65. Blammo.

This.

[merrily]

130. If that's the all-time high, I am not optimistic about the future of performance art.

[questionseverything]

29. ummm did ya know the dnc was supposed to be giving bernie a level playing field ?

[madfloridian]

31. Oh lovely. "The DNC is standing up against Sanders bullies"

[Enthusiast]

45. Standing up against Sanders supporters is against the very purpose of the DNC.

But you willingly admit they are working against Sander's supporters. You recognize the truth of that at least.

We see it too. We are on the receiving end.

[Beowulf42]

77. Sander's Bullies

How sad that people who control so much of the Dem. party are being bullied by Sander's people. Bernie is the only one in this race who is running of the basic democratic principles I and so many others believe in. In large part the abandonment of these FDR memes is the major reason our party doesn't win elections. Read the polls and then check out the stances of candidates other than Bernie and tell me if I'm wrong.

[gregcrawford]

78. Good grief...

... I almost hope you're serious so I can laugh my ass off!

[sonofspy777]

84. What Bullshit

The only thugs in the room are the DNC's!

[roody]

90. Hi, how is it going, Debbie?

[erronis]

118. She won't answer you. She isn't listening and doesn't care.

DWS and HRC and 3rd way (some leave the "h" out of third.)

[rhett o rick]

93. The DNC sold out to the big corporations. Then no longer represent the grassroots Democrats.

The People's Movement is underway, fighting an uphill battle against the American Aristocrats that DWS represents. We must throw out the corruption that has been brought by Citizens United and the billionaires. How can Democrats side with the Aristocrats against the middle and working classes and the poor?

[Yallow]

105. "side with the Aristocrats against the middle and working classes"

They will try....

[hay rick]

108. LOL.

"Sanders bullies" is the punch line for those who missed it.

[lewebley3]

196. Can't help you Sanders people have a blind spot

[Cassiopeia]

114. "The DNC is standing up against Sanders bullies"

So it's the job of the DNC to turn against millions of Democratic voters?

I think you've lost it.

[lewebley3]

194. The DNC is standing up for millons of Dem's that don't want Sanders

fair and square.

[Cassiopeia]

206. Shouldn't the DNC stand up for ALL Democrats?

Are you trying to imply that it is the job of the DNC to only stand up for Democrats that support Clinton?

[kacekwl]

120. You know if the DNC was doing the job they should be doing

the democratic party would never lose another election. After reading the lead poisoning story in FLINT,MI. by Snyder I wonder why the DNC is not broadcasting this information along with all the other horrible programs republicans are responsible for. All I hear all day every day is Obama bad , democrats bad , Clinton bad , liberals bad never a peep from democrats. Why not ?

[mdbl]

142. Because they are too afraid Ruch Bimboo will get on the radio and criticize them

Or Michael Savage,
or, oh nevermind, there are too many viruses out there to name.

[lewebley3]

193. Wrong: elections are run brave individual who mostly still

care about the county if the are Dems.

[billhicks76]

131. Lol...Good One

I guess some Democrats live in bubbles too.

[lewebley3]

181. Unfortunately but true: I like to think the GOP are the only bullies

but there not.

I didn't like losing to Obama, but I didn't go after the DNC
for Hillary losing: As a loyal Dem I supported my party
and voted for Obama.

He surprised me by being a very great Commander in chief
and leader. I thought he was just too young for the job,
he proved to be a great Dem even if I hate his support for
TPP: Obama not only supports the TPP: but when he talks
about it, he has a happy gleam in his eye I just don't' understand
him on this issue).

Its the one issue among many issues, I would like Obama
to explain a lot more.

[lewebley3]

186. And some Democrats who don't agree with Sanders

are fully informed about the DNC.

[noiretextatique]

172. Yes...they are much tougher on democrats and progressives

Than the gop, wall street and corporations.

[lewebley3]

192. They feel tougher because you are losing: it hurts to lose

I felt hurt when I lost to Obama: but it turn out alright for
the most part and for the best for the country.

I didn't like that Obama winning caucus state that were
not going to be in play in the general elections being counted,
and Hillary winnings disqualified (FL and Michigan).

The DNC over all is doing a good job: herding millions
of Dem's across the country in the fight to keep the white
house and the country out of GOP hands.

[hifiguy]

199. Which of course explains the massive losses

in state legislatures, governorships and congress since the loathesome DWS was handed the reins.

[hobbit709]

2. +1000

[antigop]

3. THIS!!!! nt

[IDemo]

4. *tenet*

[Le Taz Hot]

5. Thank you.

[shanti]

6. kick

[Scuba]

7. "So, the DNC managed to sell their souls, and ours, for nothing." No, they got something.

It just wasn't any benefit to rank-and-file Democrats.

[Le Taz Hot]

8. True,

and We The People got royally screwed. Hell, we're still getting royally screwed. But that line was actually referring to the part where the Democrats are back to Square One in regards to the 3:1 fundraising ratio.

[lewebley3]

23. The DNC has not sold its sold to anyone: Sanders is a loser

[Phlem]

33. Clinton is loser and completely right wing.

Der duh der der DERRRRRRRRR!

[passiveporcupine]

79. moore flaim bate...

yes, spelling is intentional

[billhicks76]

134. Weren't Those Trumps Words?

[lewebley3]

169. Except: Trump uses the word loser as meaning less place holder.

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

In the case of Sanders he really is losing for moment:
and its not anyone responsibility but his and his campaign.

Not DWS

[billhicks76]

182. Mean Less?

Lol

[lewebley3]

185. Trump use's " loser": like people use the word Ah: when they can't

think. Trump has is very bad speaker, he doesn't
keep his thoughts strait, and he couldn't read a
written speech if his life dependent on it.
The only thing in his mind he seems to be able to do remember are
the names of people he believes may or may not be attacking
him.

His secretary must be keeping a list: Even after Megan
Kelly came back after vacation; he didn't
miss beat attacking Megan. I don't care fox or Megan,
but it was creepy the way Trump went after her.

( that stuff about Megan period was creepy sick, also
Hillary going the bathroom and Trump sort of slut
shame her)

Trump is very creepy!!!! ( Fascist types tend to have creepy
sex lives in my opinion only)

[merrily]

133. "Follow the money." Deep Throat, aka Mark Felt

No political advice or commentary ever given has been truer, terser or more widely applicable.

[Katashi_itto]

9. K&R! Down with 3rd Way.

Like I would vote for any candidate she backs.

[lewebley3]

24. Down with bulling the the DNC

[Phlem]

34. Blah bla blah blah blah.

[dorkzilla]

59. More like

Herp derp de derp, derp derp herp herp de de derp derp!

DERP DERP HERP DE DERP!!!!!

[immoderate]

62. Do you realize that you come across as a troll?

I may not be as obvious to you.

--imm

[merrily]

135. Doesn't seem to be bothered by how he, she or they come across.

[lewebley3]

189. Yes, as Dem: not a socialist supporter

[immoderate]

191. But if a majority voted for socialism, would you support them?

--imm

[librechik]

10. mission accomplished

and if anyone thinks Third Way hasn't been an effective tool of conservative ideology which wants to discredit and defeat liberal social solutions, just read the numbers.

[zentrum]

11. Call the DNC 202 863 8000!

Be active, make a stink about this. We don't have to just sit and observe this . Call and write—not just the DNC but the WH and your Senators and Reps.

DNC email form: http://my.democrats.org/page/s/contact-the-democrats
DNC phone number: 202 863 8000.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. I'm sorry, do you think that individuals

and organizations have NOT contacted them already? Hundreds of articles have been written about this. And why should WE have to remind THEM that their"leadership" has been a complete failure. This is the NFL and if they can't deduce that all on their own, and make adjustments accordingly, they deserve to fade off into obscurity. This is clearly a case of physician, heal thyself.

[zentrum]

18. Not so.

If the agitation keeps growing and growing, it will have more of an effect. DWS power brokers aren't going to fade away. They have to be pushed away. This physician is too fat and self satisfied to even feel it needs healing.

Lots of insiders —the Clintons, Schumer types, etc—support her. So far, they are prevailing.

The main criticism of liberals is that we have gone passive and do not mount serious pressure—thus lobbyists and corporate money never fear us.

Whatever happened to what Chris Hedges calls "The Liberal Class"? Ans: They sat back.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. Don't look now but the agitation

levels are red-lining. It's why there's been such an enormous outcry against the DNC under DWS's reign and it's why people aren't donating to the DNC -- they're currently in the red. The fact is we HAVE spoken. We've spoken with our wallets we've spoken with our phone calls, our blog entries and with declining Democratic Party registrations. Those are our weapons and we've used them. But the DNC has turned a deaf ear. We the People have done all we can within the system. Sooner or later the powers within the Democratic Party (honestly, it needs to be Obama) need to take the reigns and pull back on their corporate-friendly bent.

As for the progressives, we're activists. We're always here, we're always active, we're always organizing and we're always involved. The one thing that no one can credibly claim we've been is "passive."

[KoKo]

58. ...!

[merrily]

136. Not so. No one was more active than liberals. No. One.

First, I am not so sure they went passive. If they did, though, they "went passive" because of unresponsiveness of politicians.

Do you think a politician is going to buck the DNC, his or her caucus, the minority or majority leader of his party, etc. and jeopardize his or livelihood because he or she got an email from me or saw me holding a picket sign in some demonstration? As long as they stay in favor with the Party, LOTE voting saves them at the polls.

[tazkcmo]

53. Pelosi is happy with her. So is Obama.

And, according to Pelosi, the Democratic Nominee supports her.

[Paka]

89. Have I been asleep?

I didn't know we had a Democratic Nominee yet this election.

[tazkcmo]

119. Me either.

But then, we're not privy to the Movers And Shakers Club meetings. I'm sure they have a Plan.

[Duval]

71. I've done that already, but for those who haven't, it's a good idea.

[Omaha Steve]

12. K&R!

OS

[ConservativeDemocrat]

14. So the DNC is to blame for Democrats losing congressional support...

...while we have a Democratic president.

Nuh huh.

This is totally unlike the past, where the party of the President has never lost congressional power as his term extends.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ It is obvious that you don't have a clue. Do you ever plan on getting one?

[Le Taz Hot]

16. As stated in the OP,

the DNC, under DWS, has failed in their mission. The numbers don't lie and they can't be explained away. It is what it is. The Democratic Party can choose to make the necessary adjustments or they can continue to lose elections and that certainly includes the White House in 2016.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

40. Ah, the old compare it to your dreams of magical rainbows and unicorn-farts method

The DNC only "failed" if you assume that it's "normal" for the party in power to have no losses when they have the Presidency. This is an event that has never happened in either of our lifetimes; nor does it account for the unprecedented gerrymandering.

In reality, neither Senator's Reid or Coons would be in office if it wasn't for the ideological-mirror of the hard Sanderistas left - the teabaggers. So, by turning back the loony-tunes, we've ended up not doing too badly, overall.

So... got anything else? I'm glad to educate you.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Le Taz Hot]

42. So, this just got real juvenile real fast.

I'm done.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

56. Translation: your conspiracy theorizing got called out

And faced with facts you can't deny, you turn tail and run.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bread_and_roses]

60. "Sanderistas" "hard left?"

There is nothing "hard left" about Sanders, or his supporters. We don't have a "hard left" voice in US politics. If you think anything about Sanders or his supporters is "hard left" I don't even know where to start in terms of explaining why that is so ludicrous.

[hifiguy]

66. Bernie sounds exactly like Hubert Humphrey, LBJ and all the Kennedy brothers.

If that's "hard left" it only illustrates how far to the right this once-proud party, which used to stand for and with average Americans - has been led astray by those delicious corporate dollars.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

74. Humphrey, LBJ, and the Kennedys campaigned as socialists?

Oooookaaaayyyyy....

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ Go back and learn some history, kid. You're embarrassing yourself

[hifiguy]

75. Try looking at the POLICIES they proposed

not the label. If you can see one bit of difference between the policy positions, get back to me.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

82. Okay, sure

Again, you really need to learn some history, guy...

Would Democrats embrace JFK now?

The 35th president was an ardent tax-cutter who championed across-the-board, top-to-bottom reductions in personal and corporate tax rates, slashed tariffs to promote free trade, and even spoke out against the “confiscatory” property taxes being levied in too many cities.
...
He was anything but a big-spending, welfare-state liberal. “I do not believe that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves through local and private effort,” Kennedy bluntly avowed during the 1960 campaign. One of his first acts as president was to institute a pay cut for top White House staffers, and that was only the start of his budgetary austerity. “To the surprise of many of his appointees,” longtime aide Ted Sorensen would later write, he “personally scrutinized every agency request with a cold eye and encouraged his budget director to say ‘no.’ ”
...
He hadn’t changed his political stripes by the time he ran for the Senate in 1952, challenging incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Stoll notes that Massachusetts newspapers wanting to back a liberal in that race came out for the Republican — the Berkshire Eagle, for example, endorsed Lodge as “an invaluable voice for liberalism.” When his reelection in 1958 made it clear that Kennedy would be running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Eleanor Roosevelt was asked in a TV interview whom she would support if forced to choose “between a conservative Democrat like Kennedy and a liberal Republican [like] Rockefeller.” FDR’s widow, then as now a progressive icon, answered that she would do all she could to make sure Kennedy wouldn’t be the party’s nominee.

Or, Mr. "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids have you killed today?"

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ Man, and they say Reagan had a rose-colored rear view mirror.

[sprts]

123. In a different time in america

Federal taxes were at 90% for the top rate. The social safety net was strong and it was a time when supply side economics were needed. Kennedy supported the new deal and it's safe to say he would spin in his grave if he saw the deregulation and tax rate now. Kennedy simply understood economics.

[1939]

140. JFK said

that high tax rates (91%) were responsible for the repeated recessions of the Eisenhower years. The brackets went from 20% at the bottom to 91% at the top. JFK reduced rates across the entire tax code with the new rates going from 14% to 70%. The next major reduction to the tax code was by Carters dropping the top rate from 70% to 50% for "earned income". Reagan cut the top rate to 50% for all income. The 1986 total "tax reform" bill (which was bi-partisan) created the 35% top rate which Clinton moved to 39.6%.

[cui bono]

95. Who is campaigning as a socialist?

And you might want to lose the condescending attitude, especially considering how wrong you are about everything you are posting in here.

.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

121. You're unwilling to acknowledge what your own candidate says?

I cite facts and evidence. You guys cite your own feelings about what the truth should be. But truthiness is a hallmark of extremists, and once again, Democrats are a pragmatic party. Unlike the GOP, we don't do extremism.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

124. No, I'm not. So who's running as a socialist?

[sprts]

126. U should read a little history yourself

[BeanMusical]

168. "And you might want to lose the condescending attitude"

+1 Yeah, some people are really classy. Must suck to be them.

[stevenleser]

113. Alert results, 4-3 to keep

On Thu Jan 7, 2016, 04:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Humphrey, LBJ, and the Kennedys campaigned as socialists?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7508675

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Hiding the insult at the end of the post isn't helping conceal it. This poster is personally insulting several others in several posts in this OP.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 7, 2016, 04:58 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I would expect the Right to use "socialist" as a slur against any Democratic candidate, as in fact, it has done for some long time. Post 66 appears to hold high classic Democratic constituencies which are factors in the current election cycle up and down the ballot. Post 74 could have argued the degree to which this is true or influential instead of characterizing with a traditional Rightwing slur.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not alertworthy. A waste of seven juror's time. If you disagree with CD, respond, don't alert. Alerts aren't for shutting down people with whom you disagree.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages

[merrily]

139. One insulting post after another. Gag.

[merrily]

138. You claim Dem losses in 2010 and 2014 were typical and backing a New Deal Dem is hard left--

and you smugly offer to educate others?

[Betty Karlson]

162. Losses and losses are two different things:

By refusing to field candidates likely to enthouse young voters and the left wing, by endorsing policies that dejected the rank and file, the DNC has exacerbated the inevitable losses, and thrown a 60 - 40 majority in the senate into a 45-55 minority.

[sonofspy777]

87. Umm you do realize that your moniker

IS AN OXYMORON!


Further explanation should be unnecessary....

[ConservativeDemocrat]

122. No. It's not.

Please note that there are far more Conservative Democrats (16%) than there are members of the "DU-wing" of the party: Very Liberal Democrats (10%). And this isn't even talking about the fringe left Naderites and other hate filled extremists who can't stand the Democratic party, and constantly bash us. But we Democratic party is far more moderate, and has a big tent.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ The Democratic party is the party of facts and reality, so just making up stuff you'd like to be true generally isn't persuasive.

[merrily]

141. Poster, please. 16% is more than 29%? Did you really expect to get away with that?

Very conservative 4% Very liberal 10%

Conservative 16% Liberal 29%

[ConservativeDemocrat]

154. Try again...

First, my comments are very clear. The DU doesn't represent liberal Democrats. They represent radical Democrats. So yes, the number of Conservative Democrats outnumbers the DU wing of the party.

Second, I was responding to someone claiming that Conservative Democrat is an oxymoron.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[merrily]

155. No need to try again. My post was correct. Yours was not.

Nothing you posted changed that

[ConservativeDemocrat]

157. Mine was not?

Do tell. Explicitly.

Your non sequiturs do nothing to detract from my original point.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[merrily]

159. MY non sequiturs? LOL

That's the first time I've ever seen an accusation of using a non sequitur actually itself be a non sequitur. A melding form and content.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

161. Your refusal to provide evidence is noted...

...and telling.

Extremists never actually back their naked assertions with facts. Again, this is most typically seen on the Republican side, but we Democrats also have a handful of fringe haters as well.

And to be explicit, your attempt to compare the number of liberal democrats to conservative democrats is a non sequitur when applied to the question of whether conservative democrat is an oxymoron.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ Your use of Zippy-the-pinhead as your mascot is amusing, but I'm pretty sure you don't realize what you're saying about yourself.

[merrily]

163. Evidence of what? The numbers in my post are right off the chart you posted. It's not rocket science

Bizarre.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

165. Evidence that anything I said was not correct

Let me see if I can explain this to you, using a completely different example. Say that there is a discussion going on like this:

Poster: "Slices of orange are orange. A non-orange orange is an oxymoron."

Me: "Ever heard of blood oranges? Their flesh is purple."

You: "You can make orange juice out of oranges! Orange juice."

Me: "What does this have to do with the question? I remind you it is "whether non-orange flesh in an orange is an oxymoron"

You: "What I said was correct. You were not."

Me: "Hoh boy. The question of whether all oranges all have orange flesh has nothing to do with whether you can make orange juice."

You: "But it's orange juice. ORANGE! And you can make juice from oranges. Everybody knows that."

Me: "..."


I'm really not sure that you can understand that there are two entirely different questions here. Or that my assertion that there are more democrats of the conservative flavor in the party than there are democrats of the "DU" flavor, is entirely correct.

However, as I'm open minded. You are welcome to show me where any statement I've made is not correct.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[merrily]

167. Reply 141 points out your error. The chart YOU posted is evidence that Reply 141 is correct.

As I said, it's not rocket science.

Each of your posts is becoming weirder than the last. I'm done.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

171. By "weirder", you mean less able to dodge

No one is disputing that the non sequitur you posted is factually correct. It's merely a non sequitur, and does not address the original question, or refute my original assertions in any way.

And the fact that you have no clue about how logic works is not surprising.

See you.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[merrily]

137. 2014 losses--local, state and federal--were historic, not business as usual.

At the federal level alone, they were the worst since 1928. They followed some dramatic losses in 2010. The combination was stunning. Pretending all you want that this was only part of a pattern doesn't change reality.

[stupidicus]

15. that's long been the predictable/predicted outcome

that this country has always and continues to lean leftward (at least in regards to socio-economic policy -- and making a mockery of the "center/right" myth) made an eruption only a matter of time to be determined by happenstance and the accumulation of enough negatives from them to wake up and sour enough people on their failures.

That's what the BS campaign is all about imo -- waking that sleeping giant who will join those of us who've been DLC/3rdway critics practically since their birth and beyond.

I think win or lose, Bernie's wake up call will only grow the numbers of those who'll eventually join us in rejection of the 3rdway ways....

[Le Taz Hot]

17. Re your last paragraph.

I absolutely think that this movement has moved way past the Bernie campaign and will continue with the end result of the progressives re-taking the Democratic party or the other option which cannot be discussed on DU. (DEAR ALERTER(S) I am not advocating for Third Parties, I am merely making a prediction if certain things don't take place.)

[stupidicus]

158. it's been inevitable

AS I've long seen and argued it, the change isn't inevitable just because of the "network Moment" many on the left are experiencing as a result of his candidacy, but perhaps more so in the decades to come because of the political changes AGW are gonna compel. I'd say that all of the political theatre and socio-econ inequalitites that have increased and accumulated since the Raygun years are due in whole or in part to the awareness on the part of the moneyed masters, of the inevitability and ramifications economically and socially, of AGW.

Most of the solutions are gonna necessarily be (As Bill Gates recently argued) "socialistic", meaning solutions that the right is no longer in it's current mindset, capable of offering.

The fear of rightwing excesses that the DLCers have effectively used to shield themselves from the ridicule and scorn they'd otherwise be getting, will eventually evaporate in the war between the needy and the greedy.

[Tsiyu]

19. Awesome post

Ramen and Ramen again.

[WillyT]

20. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[restorefreedom]

25. its is clear they are working for the 1% not us

we need to take the party back or a new party for progressives will be born through this election. either way, the toothpaste is out of the tube. too many of us know how it is now. and we are not going back to third way/corporate rule.

bernie was the ignition...the fire of progressivism will burn bright no matter whether he is president (yes) or stays in the senate (less likely)

the tide has turned..no going back

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."

Omar Khayyam

[jwirr]

83. Voter since JFK and that is also the way I see it. We are not

only going to have to deal with DWS but next week we are going to have to face the vote on the TPP. That will tell us what we are looking at in this party. Are we going to follow the Third Way and corporations or are we going back toward We the People.

[restorefreedom]

91. i am sure many of us

will be waiting for that congressional list of how they voted.

its hard to imagine myself supporting anyone who votes for this travesty.

[jwirr]

92. Exactly.

[jeff47]

178. Good news! You don't have to worry about the TPP vote.

Thanks to the TPA vote, the TPP can pass with 100% Republican votes.

We can get all sorts of "liberals" expressing "concerns" and then in a giant feat of showmanship, regretfully announce that they can't vote for the TPP. And it will still pass.

[jwirr]

187. That is what I was afraid of. We have a very broken government.

How soon do we need to expect to start feeling the results?

[Phlem]

35. K&R!!!!

Spot On!

[Octafish]

36. Wasn't for nothing: We the 99-percent of the People are farther behind than ever.

"So, the DNC managed to sell their souls, and ours, for nothing -- they're back where they started."

These are the wealthiest times in human history. David Stockman estimates that 7/8 of ALL wealth has been created since 1981. He also said that the lion's share has ended up the fewest pockets. So, where are the Democrats, the nation's real progressives, those once known as our liberal voices?

Thank you for a great OP and thread, Le Taz Hot!

[Le Taz Hot]

39. The progressives (not to be confused with Democrats)

haven't gone anywhere. We're where we always were. We got kicked out of their party and were relegated to "fucking retard" status.

[Octafish]

41. That is so.

And the reason is money. The Party had to sell its soul to compete. Plus, the money's that good.

Take ex-Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) retired from the Senate and found a job as Vice Chairman of UBS -- the Swiss Bank that received about $59 Billion with a Billion in TARP funds -- from where Gramm hired Bill Clinton, who signed into law the repeal of Glass Steagall Act that had prevented the banksters from making crazy with the US taxpayers' money at the Wall Street casino. Since then, Gramm has added pretzeldent George W Bush and other luminaries from both parties to specialize in Wealth Management:

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

Then, there's the "Money trumps peace" crowd. No matter who votes what, they make big bucks all the damn day.

BTW: Whatever happened to that guy who said that? I heard he was moving up in the world, but nobody knows him anymore.

[cui bono]

97. We're called the Teabaggers of the left in this OP!

We're not the Dems not discussing policy and voting against our interests. Of course those that do that are not on the left at all.

.

[Le Taz Hot]

98. LOL!

There's a reason I have like 200 people on my ignore list. Some people have nothing salient to contribute to any conversation. Ever. I'll discuss policy all day long with anyone, but this cheerleading, dumber-than-dirt, totally devoid of logic crap bores the shit out of me. Life is short and I'm already 60, I don't have that kinda time.

[cui bono]

100. I really need to start an ignore list.

Can you believe I don't have one???



.

[Le Taz Hot]

111. You're a bigger person than I am, cui bono.

But then again, I'm renown for my lack of patience.

That reminds me of a meme someone sent me on FB: "A wise woman once said, 'Fuck this shit!' And she lived happily ever after." I thought that summed it up nicely.

[cui bono]

125. Oh, I don't know about that!

I tend to go 'round the merry-go-round with some of them too many times. And I tend to stay on until they get dizzy or tired. Or both! I really need to stop wasting my time but it's hard to see so much distortion of the truth and not call it out.

Your post reminds me of...
Bernie, Because Fuck This Shit!



.

[hifiguy]

103. Proof that there are some very dull knives

in this drawer. Standing up for everything that Democrats stood for for 60 years (which ONLY Bernie is doing) means we are the outliers. And I have a bridge for sale cheap, located in Brooklyn, no less!

[azmom]

37. Kick

[SoapBox]

38. Total K & R!

No more Third Way.

No more Clintons.

[hifiguy]

67. A thousand times this.

And then a thousand more.

[Enthusiast]

43. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Deserves.

[azureblue]

46. there is something about Debby

that I don't like, and that is her actions that serve to wreck the DNC. I think her anti pot rant reveals a lot about her thought processes and logic. She acts like a mole sometimes....

[Enthusiast]

47. +1!

[Duppers]

63. Exactly, "like a Mole"!

[raindaddy]

51. Looking like 3rd way Democrats would rather see moderate republicans in office than liberal Dems..

[DhhD]

116. And if Web enters the GE campaign as an Independent, I believe Hillary will flip flop back Right to

full throttle, third way.

(Web was the financial purse behind Joe Biden's possible run for President.)

[raindaddy]

117. I bet you're right..

Bernie's in a good spot.. On the issues I believe most Democrats are liberal and Sanders has been pretty consistent when it comes to the issues.

Hillary's flipping is already starting to catch up to her.

[Trajan]

54. Oh Fuck Le Taz!

What a bold and searing indictment ... absolutely and totally TRUE!

That should be required reading for EVERY Democrat, everywhere ...

Thanks so much! ... You ROCK!

[Le Taz Hot]

55. LOL!

Love your post title!

[hollysmom]

57. maybe if D W-S wasn't buisy killing off all the progressives she could

some could actually get elected - instead she would rather not have anyone run against republicans in her own state - how exactly is that part of the DNC purpose? Ihave heard about her screwing local people with false promises and then moving the goal lines when they meet the demands of the DNC. That is no way to get democrats elected, just encouraging people to support democrats would go a long way, but Noooo, Not our Debbie.

[Ichingcarpenter]

61. Great Post and observation

Debbie does corporations and PACs

[hifiguy]

68. Over and over

again and again.

I see what you did there.

[Duval]

70. Debbie doesn't do Dallas anymore? I'm laughing at

your way with words!! Great comment!

[hifiguy]

64. She's still employed for one reason.

She is accomplishing the goals of her masters, the first one of which is raking in that delicious, tasty corporate money and greasing the pivot on the revolving door between government and Wall Street. Simple, really.

Not an accident. By design.

[Ivan Kaputski]

69. Poor people can't contribute enough to get someone elected...

except Bernie seems to be doing quite well with individual donors. I imagine they are not dirt poor.

[Duval]

72. K&R and thanks!!

[Utopian Leftist]

76. I pray that the majority of Democrats

are intelligent enough to look at what is really going on and take this once in a lifetime opportunity to vote for real change.

And Bernie's first wielded act of power from within the Democratic Party should be to fire DWS' evil ass.

[Yallow]

107. "once in a lifetime opportunity to vote for real change"

There you have it in a nutshell..

Some of us are tired of being screwed by all the Republicans and half the Democrats every time we turn around.

Time to stand our ground.

[Paka]

86. K&R

[cui bono]

94. Cue Bernie getting the blame for lack of fundraising since he doesn't take Super Pac money.

[CharlotteVale]

101. K&R

[Gothmog]

102. Have you ever attended a state convention and voted for DNC member?

If you do not like the way the DNC is operated, you can work inside the party and run for the DNC. I have been to several state conventions and the people who are elected to the DNC are not corporate shills but party activists who worked inside the party for a long time. Heck, the people who are on the equivalent organization for the Texas Democratic Party spend a ton of time on state party matters.

If you dislike how the DNC is operated, then get involved and work in the party to change things

[Le Taz Hot]

109. Yes, I was an Executive Board Member

with the California Democratic Party. You seem to have missed the point of the post. The DNC is turning a deaf ear to it's rank-and-file constituency. People have voted with their wallets (the DNC is in the red), they've communicated their disillusionment with the DNC by ever-decreasing registrations, individuals and organizations have tried to communicate to DWS their dissatisfaction with so many issues -- all to no avail. The people HAVE spoken, it's just that the DNC isn't listening. The DNC will continue to ignore their own constituency at their own peril.

[emsimon33]

106. Well said!

[Babel_17]

115. What top Democratic consultant has been suffering under DWS?

We just go from the party advancing its agenda, to the one defending against against the other party's agenda. Either way, the money comes in. And playing defense seems to allow for more free time.

[tularetom]

143. While we were all chortling about the upcoming demographic demise of the GOP

The people "in charge" of the Democratic Party failed to take advantage of the opportunity they had been given to restore their appeal to younger, less well to do, more disaffected voters. Instead they opted to pursue the same big money donors that have always favored republicans.

Consequently the middle class, millennials, minorities, fixed income seniors, and the working poor have nowhere to go. The Sanders movement has opened some eyes and a lot of voters will no longer fall for the same bullshit.

IMO there's now a very good chance that the democratic party will implode long before the other guys do. Unless we wake up and get rid of the rot that is destroying what once was the people's party.

[Le Taz Hot]

145. And DWS's recent rant

saying younger women take abortion rights for granted, intimating they are not involving themselves in the issue. Way to bring in the Millennials, Deb!

[jeff47]

180. My prediction

Over the next 20-ish years, the Democratic party splits in two. One party settles into the historic location of the Republicans (ex. Ike), one settles into the historic location of the Democrats (ex. FDR). We don't know which one will keep the "Democratic" name.

The Republicans will continue to wander further and further into insanity until they wither away.

What will make this "fun" is the disarray caused by the fracturing of the Democratic party will create openings for the more and more insane Republican party to win.

[raouldukelives]

144. K&R The #1 concern is obviously the money continuing to flow.

Even Trump is preferable to many than Bernie. They won't come right out and say it, but with every dollar invested in corporations, they assure it. As long as Wall St and its boosters are happy, they are happy and there is only one option who represents a true threat to them.

[eridani]

146. I heard that someone was prmarying her n/t

[ChiciB1]

149. AND THE BEAT GOES ON!!!

Great OP, and so amazing that so many Democrats WON'T open their eyes! It's time for a REVOLT!

VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! Let's help find our way back!!!!

[ccinamon]

150. Excellent!

I have not been an "activist" for very long (since 2010), but I've stayed informed on politics since 1977.

This is the best summation of the past 40 years I've seen. Standing 'O'!!!!

(daily newspaper, various magazines, and MSM until 2000,,,, now the internet...no longer watch/read MSM -- too full of lies and only tell one side of the story)

[Chathamization]

151. We get the DNC we vote for. Most people don't bother paying attention, and so we get bad people.

I don't think anyone I know (including myself) could even tell you whether or not they voted for DNC members if you asked them immediately after they voted. Good luck finding people who knew the name and actual positions of these people.

I doubt online petitions and phone calls are going to make much of a difference. If we want to change the DNC, we need to start paying attention to who we send to the DNC, and actually work on sending good people. When we ignore who we're electing, we shouldn't be surprised when we get a mess.

[Le Taz Hot]

164. Actually, "we" don't get a vote

for the DNC Leadership, that's done by the state parties, e-boards and party leaders. The rank-and-file Democrats don't get a say and therein lies the problem.

[Chathamization]

200. The rank and file Democrats get to vote for the DNC members though. Most people ignore this, true

but that's a large part of the problem.

[Le Taz Hot]

202. Now we're talking membership?

The goal posts just changed. OK, membership is acquired via paying dues but gives the holder no say in choosing leadership and the leadership who determines policy and in what direction the DNC will go. And in that the DNC's membership is at record lows and is currently in the red, I'd say the rank-and-file have spoken.

[Chathamization]

203. Eh? I'm talking about DNC committee members. The ones who choose the chair. Most of these people

are elected by the public one way or another (elected state party members or DNC committee members directly elected by the public).

[Le Taz Hot]

204. And a third movement of the goal posts.

I'm done here.

[Chathamization]

205. Not sure if you've been purposefully misreading my posts or are just very confused about the DNC

The DNC is the Democratic National Committee. Members of the Democratic National Committee are...drumroll...committee members. Many of these are elected by voters, either directly, or as members of state committees. All three of my posts were clearly talking about that.

First post:

We get the DNC we vote for. Most people don't bother paying attention, and so we get bad people.I don't think anyone I know (including myself) could even tell you whether or not they voted for DNC members if you asked them immediately after they voted. Good luck finding people who knew the name and actual positions of these people.

Pretty clearly talking about which committee members we vote to send to the DNC. Second post:

The rank and file Democrats get to vote for the DNC members though. Most people ignore this, true but that's a large part of the problem.

Pretty clearly talking about which committee members we vote to send to the DNC. Third post:

Eh? I'm talking about DNC committee members. The ones who choose the chair. Most of these people are elected by the public one way or another (elected state party members or DNC committee members directly elected by the public).

Again, pretty clearly talking about which committee members we vote to send to the DNC. Not sure if you were simply not bothering to read my posts or just don't really understand how the DNC.

[Le Taz Hot]

207. Yeah, I'm new to this politics thing.

Can you explain it to me?

<flush>

[Doctor_J]

156. This was the goal of the DLC from the beginning

The founding members detest Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, the CRA, all most of what liberals accomplished in the 20th century. they want to be just like Republicans - filthy rich and completely amoral - so have tried to turn Roe v. Wage into their sole reason to exist. When the novelty of voting for a conservative african american or a conservative female wears off, they'll be lucky to have enough votes to carry a motion at the Smallville city council meeting.

[Betty Karlson]

160. Excellent observation. eom

[Kermitt Gribble]

166. K&R! n/t

[TryLogic]

170. The 2nd listed post: "Wrong. The DNC has many functions" does not seem to fit with the

original post. Of course the DNC has many functions. The problem is the Third-Way, the DLC, Wasserman-Schultz, and the Clintons. Or, should I just say, MONEY.

[Jesus Malverde]

173. Sad to see

Sold to the highest bidder... Haim Saban, and his friends.

[Faux pas]

177. Kickin'