Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The imminent backlash of the Democratic Left. [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)298. They do
"Most Democrats cannot bring themselves to talk about it anymore.
The inequality, the poverty, the lack of jobs, the addled-brained trade treaties, the low wages, Wall Street greed, taxes, homelessness, etc. It is all just beneath them. What does their "Party" stand for, anyway??"
...talk about it, but after decades of the decline, small progress is finally being made.
President Obama Praises Phoenix Efforts to End Veteran Chronic Homelessness
http://phoenix.gov/news/080613obamapraise.html
Phoenix Becomes First City To End Chronic Homelessness Among Veterans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024217875
Did you catch Obama's recent speech?
Obama's inequality speech: telling the progressive story of American history
by Ian Reifowitz
Barack Obama knows how to tell a story. One of his great strengths is his ability to craft a narrative of our history that resonates with Americans and advances a progressive understanding of who we are as a people. Obama's telling of that history always features both progress as well as our failure to live up to the ideals of equality we lay down at the country's founding. His American history narratives have long centered on two purposes.
The first is to encourage Americans across every possible group line to recognize one another as being part of a single community of Americans based on our shared membership in the civic nation. The President's placing of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall among the pantheon of the great events in our history is perhaps the best known example of this, among countless other occasions where he has done so throughout his career.
The second, one that featured prominently in yesterday's speech on economic inequality, is to emphasize the long-standing rootsas well as the moral superiority and greater effectivenessof a common good-centered, progressive economic philosophy. I've never heard President Obama do this better than he did yesterday. He told the story of our country as one in which we moved closer and closer to being a society built around equal opportunity and a notion of the common good that provided a basic safety net for those of us who faced hard times.
Until, that is, we inaugurated President Ronald Reagan. Obama also rightly noted the impact of globalization on our economy, but then specifically highlighted the crucial role of right-wing economic thinkingcalling out Reaganite "trickle-down ideology" on taxes and on the lack of commitment to invest in our country's resourcesin moving us away from the path on which we'd been traveling for over a century thanks to progressives in both parties.
This is the kind of historical narrative that people can connect with. It is a story that has a clear good guy and a clear villain, the kind of story that, in raw political terms, helps frame the debate in a highly effective way. More broadly, the speech provided an exceptionally strong philosophical and factual underpinning for the progressive ideals we hold dear.
Below the fold is the excerpt of the speech in which the President lays out his narrative of our history.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260417/-Obama-s-inequality-speech-telling-the-progressive-story-of-American-history
by Ian Reifowitz
Barack Obama knows how to tell a story. One of his great strengths is his ability to craft a narrative of our history that resonates with Americans and advances a progressive understanding of who we are as a people. Obama's telling of that history always features both progress as well as our failure to live up to the ideals of equality we lay down at the country's founding. His American history narratives have long centered on two purposes.
The first is to encourage Americans across every possible group line to recognize one another as being part of a single community of Americans based on our shared membership in the civic nation. The President's placing of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall among the pantheon of the great events in our history is perhaps the best known example of this, among countless other occasions where he has done so throughout his career.
The second, one that featured prominently in yesterday's speech on economic inequality, is to emphasize the long-standing rootsas well as the moral superiority and greater effectivenessof a common good-centered, progressive economic philosophy. I've never heard President Obama do this better than he did yesterday. He told the story of our country as one in which we moved closer and closer to being a society built around equal opportunity and a notion of the common good that provided a basic safety net for those of us who faced hard times.
Until, that is, we inaugurated President Ronald Reagan. Obama also rightly noted the impact of globalization on our economy, but then specifically highlighted the crucial role of right-wing economic thinkingcalling out Reaganite "trickle-down ideology" on taxes and on the lack of commitment to invest in our country's resourcesin moving us away from the path on which we'd been traveling for over a century thanks to progressives in both parties.
This is the kind of historical narrative that people can connect with. It is a story that has a clear good guy and a clear villain, the kind of story that, in raw political terms, helps frame the debate in a highly effective way. More broadly, the speech provided an exceptionally strong philosophical and factual underpinning for the progressive ideals we hold dear.
Below the fold is the excerpt of the speech in which the President lays out his narrative of our history.
Now, the premise that were all created equal is the opening line in the American story. And while we dont promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity -- the idea that success doesnt depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. And with every chapter weve added to that story, weve worked hard to put those words into practice.
It was Abraham Lincoln, a self-described poor mans son, who started a system of land grant colleges all over this country so that any poor mans son could go learn something new.
When farms gave way to factories, a rich mans son named Teddy Roosevelt fought for an eight-hour workday, protections for workers, and busted monopolies that kept prices high and wages low.
When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security, and insurance for the unemployed, and a minimum wage.
When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid.
Together, we forged a New Deal, declared a War on Poverty in a great society. We built a ladder of opportunity to climb, and stretched out a safety net beneath so that if we fell, it wouldnt be too far, and we could bounce back. And as a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known. And for the three decades after World War II, it was the engine of our prosperity.
Now, we cant look at the past through rose-colored glasses. The economy didnt always work for everyone. Racial discrimination locked millions out of poverty -- or out of opportunity. Women were too often confined to a handful of often poorly paid professions. And it was only through painstaking struggle that more women, and minorities, and Americans with disabilities began to win the right to more fairly and fully participate in the economy.
Nevertheless, during the post-World War II years, the economic ground felt stable and secure for most Americans, and the future looked brighter than the past. And for some, that meant following in your old mans footsteps at the local plant, and you knew that a blue-collar job would let you buy a home, and a car, maybe a vacation once in a while, health care, a reliable pension. For others, it meant going to college -- in some cases, maybe the first in your family to go to college. And it meant graduating without taking on loads of debt, and being able to count on advancement through a vibrant job market.
Now, its true that those at the top, even in those years, claimed a much larger share of income than the rest: The top 10 percent consistently took home about one-third of our national income. But that kind of inequality took place in a dynamic market economy where everyones wages and incomes were growing. And because of upward mobility, the guy on the factory floor could picture his kid running the company some day.
But starting in the late 70s, this social compact began to unravel. Technology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. A more competitive world lets companies ship jobs anywhere. And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits.
As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither. And for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation, in part because more families were relying on two earners as women entered the workforce. We took on more debt financed by a juiced-up housing market. But when the music stopped, and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever cushion they had left.
And the result is an economy thats become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure. Ill just give you a few statistics. Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent. Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few.
The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income -- it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, todays CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.
So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to Americas market economy. Across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. How can it be, he wrote, that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?
But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. Understand weve never begrudged success in America. We aspire to it. We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives. And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. In fact, we've often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason -- because we were convinced that America is a place where even if youre born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. As Lincoln once said, While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.
The problem is that alongside increased inequality, weve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. Hes 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies -- countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.
The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260417/-Obama-s-inequality-speech-telling-the-progressive-story-of-American-history
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
749 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That is exactly what happened. He gave soaring speeches with no content. Now his supporters say
Vincardog
Jan 2014
#727
I think that's exactly what the Tea Party is doing to the right at the moment.
Xipe Totec
Dec 2013
#2
And for much the same reason. It isn't a matter of philosophy, it is the result of
Egalitarian Thug
Dec 2013
#5
Interesting thing though is that the Tea Party started out as disaffected Repugs...
bluesbassman
Dec 2013
#65
We won't see that, the left has no support from the rich except insofar as their willingness
Egalitarian Thug
Dec 2013
#82
Saboteurs have been disrupting liberal uprisings ever since Justice Powell wrote his manifesto in
loudsue
Dec 2013
#149
Exactly - they have these neat military tools to keep us in check bodily and mentally
Hestia
Dec 2013
#433
You could not be more wrong. The issues and the electorate are entirely different now.
Enthusiast
Dec 2013
#312
I disagree, respectfully.Bill Clinton rebranded himself a "new democrat" but was in
lexington filly
Dec 2013
#341
Yea ...let's keep the party moving right ...because that's where the money and votes are.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#40
"If you want more left leaning candidates get them elected in the primaries" is a "battered spouse"?
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2013
#604
Who besides you is advocating for not voting? Please give a link to a post from
A Simple Game
Dec 2013
#138
It means what it says, I will no longer vote for a candidate just because they
A Simple Game
Dec 2013
#260
Wow, who knew it could be that simple? Why has no one thought of this before? n/t
A Simple Game
Dec 2013
#375
No, I am suggesting a radical idea, voting for the best candidate regardless of party. n/t
A Simple Game
Dec 2013
#434
No, I am suggesting a radical idea, voting for the best candidate regardless of party. n/t
AlbertCat
Dec 2013
#438
"If you don't agree with Democrats, run some people in the primaries." !!! THIS!!!
bvar22
Jan 2014
#715
"not voted for a Democrat in over 10 years" "the candidate I voted for was and is now the President"
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2013
#606
Nothing but the truth, think about it, I know you will be able to figure it out. n/t
A Simple Game
Dec 2013
#623
Yes I voted for someone picked by a party, the party was Working Family instead of
A Simple Game
Dec 2013
#665
But Obama is not a member of the Working Families Party; he is a Democrat
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2013
#666
i don't think so.. they will run their own candidates for local stuff... but for national or
dionysus
Jan 2014
#725
No, I'm not saying President Obama isn't a Democrat, I'm saying he is more than a Democrat.
A Simple Game
Dec 2013
#647
"faced with a choice between a "Republican Republican" and a "Democratic Repulican""...
jtuck004
Dec 2013
#377
I am sure that is exactly the opinion any self-interested plantation owner would take
jtuck004
Dec 2013
#461
Maybe because we have grown up over the past number of years, we have learned that the phrase
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#493
Ask the Party Leadership. The voters have no control over them winning. Voters will vote only for
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#510
Rahm Emmanuel was the one who told those who won the election, that 'minority' you just spoke of,
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#550
I know the word 'purist' is INTENDED to be an insult, that was clear when it first appeared on
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#564
The 'idea' that Emmanuel called 'retarded' was running ads against conservative Democrats in 2009
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2013
#617
You mean ads against Third Wayers/Republican lite candidates which OF COURSE Rahm the Corporatist
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#630
Those who unnecessarily drive the Democratic party to the right are to blame
AgingAmerican
Dec 2013
#583
They can't admit their responsibility in the loss of Congress in 2010. See the convulated excuses
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#631
Excellent post, thank you. I wonder what it will take for the Party Leadership to realize that they
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#633
Yes and if WE lose, the People that is, I know who I will be blaming and it won't be the voters.
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#705
Problem is, we've been holding our noses and voting for the lesser of evils...
polichick
Dec 2013
#327
You don't think we could get someone to run for the Senate, the House and the presidency
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#356
Last I heard, the chained CPI is still in the budget. I won't vote for anyone who votes
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#240
Ok, now I'm confused- by "right wing plants"- do you mean plants from the Tea Party? Or "centrists"?
LooseWilly
Dec 2013
#62
I'd say the "weak willed" are those willing to accept any degradation of Liberal values
Maedhros
Dec 2013
#162
Chained CPI; supporting charter schools; giving breaks to Wall Street instead of
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#243
Democrats could have increased the minimum wage when they had both houses of
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#285
I would agree with you except for the fact that the wealth of the corporate managers, especially
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#532
Look. The right-wing of the Democratic Party has lost a lot of working people
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#352
And who will be responsible if that happens? Surely you are not blaming voters when the blame lies
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#660
FDR didn't replace Henry Wallace. The Democratic party leaders did at the Convention.
octoberlib
Dec 2013
#537
Where's Andy? Maybe Andy has something more important to do, I'll check back tomorrow. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Dec 2013
#281
Bullshit. Voting for corporate-friendly Democrats does NOT enable Progressive policies.
Maedhros
Dec 2013
#295
Bullshit. There's no way in hell that the progressive agenda is served in any way
cheapdate
Dec 2013
#313
Don't short-sell the Democrats - they also have manipulators that they pay to make bad policy
Maedhros
Dec 2013
#475
It only seems "FAR LEFT" to them when they are FAR RIGHT and think they are centre.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#310
So you like to disparage the left do you? To what aim? Are you trying to split the party?
rhett o rick
Dec 2013
#315
You are EXACTLY right. The TeaLEFT is almost as bad as the TeaRIGHT. Both are awash in radical
RBInMaine
Dec 2013
#380
You are completely WRONG about my state, and I am not disparaging actual liberals. Read on:
RBInMaine
Dec 2013
#540
You only think of one because you see the world through a non-realist purist lens. Read on:
RBInMaine
Dec 2013
#541
+a stone cold billion Julie. Astonishing to see people who claim to be so smart
Number23
Dec 2013
#136
I'm sure that made perfect sense in your head. Here, this is for you and your pals
Number23
Dec 2013
#232
I'm not the one starting an OP trying to pretend that me and my nine other friends hold
Number23
Dec 2013
#283
When you find a point, why don't you bring it along with you into this thread? Up until now
Number23
Dec 2013
#289
First you project that "claim to be so smart" was said then project an Obama poll has anything to do
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#294
So now you resort to complaining about how many times a person posts??? What a joke!
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#303
Yes, throwing "ProjecTION!1" out with so obviously no idea what that means is a better strategy
Number23
Dec 2013
#308
What was that about "typos and lack of point"? Heh ...wow ...hey you aren't pissed off are ya bro?
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#316
You're putting me on ignore???! Oh joy!! And lucky for you, there's no spelling involved!
Number23
Dec 2013
#328
Your understanding of "begging" is as good as your understanding of "projection"
Number23
Dec 2013
#347
Just what I was going to ask...except that it was 309 recs last time I checked.
Raksha
Dec 2013
#646
So why would a Democrat want to disparage the left? What issues do you disagree with?
rhett o rick
Dec 2013
#318
Every single time you have tried to come after me, the conversation ends with you running
Number23
Dec 2013
#325
Dont flatter yourself. You arent that good at bullying. You just seem to like to
rhett o rick
Dec 2013
#353
I'm not that good at bullying?? Was I trying to be?? Particularly as YOU are the one that has
Number23
Dec 2013
#376
My "1st grade attempts?" Again that's a very weak attempt. Your post is pure projection.
rhett o rick
Dec 2013
#422
Oh Praise the Lord! Can you make your little friend live up to his promise to put
Number23
Dec 2013
#481
No, the problem is entirely YOURS as you have shown REPEATEDLY in this thread
Number23
Dec 2013
#500
"needless net nannying as if anyone asked you to involve yourself" OMG the irony.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#508
"no interest in what you have to say about anything" ...and yet you keep responding.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#425
Yea ...what is it with that? Does the left make them feel uncomfortable or something ...
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#331
I am guessing that those that disparage the left do so because they covet conservative ideologies.
rhett o rick
Dec 2013
#355
This is an example of why the OP is correct. Fearmongering instead of discussing what went wrong
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#34
We are talking about two different processes inside the reality of politics.
truedelphi
Dec 2013
#302
'We have to compromise'. Sorry, we've been doing that. THEY have to compromise.
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#183
Or is it a question of compromising with Republicans who claim to be Democrats?
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#252
People who have always voted WILL vote, but as we saw in 2010, they will vote for Progressive
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#266
...and the Dem party "it seems" is catering to the defectors and embracing them while discarding...
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#44
I am not at all surprised that you cant see the difference. The left are holding onto principles
rhett o rick
Dec 2013
#173
Amen. As i read the OP, I'm thinking "Switch Dem with GOP and left with tea party"
7962
Dec 2013
#396
Let us know when the rich who make money from the MIC will contribute to the anti war...
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#8
you're turning the definition on its head. It's those who insist on voting for the lesser of 2 evils
yodermon
Dec 2013
#52
Oh come one now ...get with the program. If it has a (D) by its name ...vote for it.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#84
Damn dude, sociopathy. You'd think you were defending a drone program that regularly kills innocents
JoeyT
Dec 2013
#110
There still patting themselves on the back for the Clinton-era sanctions against Iraq
Maedhros
Dec 2013
#168
You wonder what we thought when Bush launched his criminal war? You mean you don't remember?
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#43
The Democratic Party is going to have to appeal to the left if it wants the Left's votes.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2013
#7
They'll appeal to us with cries of "not as bad" and the "lesser of two evils".
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2013
#15
Yep. And, they will claim the Left gave the seats to the Republicans after the election.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2013
#41
It should be made clear right now. IF Democrats lose the next election, the ONLY people to blame
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#49
Yes, I supported DeBlasio due to his long history on progressive issues. I would not have supported
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#104
If he continues that trend, he will lose the next election and if he had told people he intended to
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#129
De Blasio Appoints Goldman Sachs Exec To Deputy Mayor Post For 'Fighting Inequality'
Phlem
Dec 2013
#208
If the candidate wants the votes of the left, then he must appeal to left wing voters.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2013
#654
To win, she will have to attract the Indepents who came out in 2008 to get rid of Bush policies
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#59
I was clear in what I said I believe. No candidate can win with just their base.
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#91
Funny, From Where I'm Sitting It Looked Like They Came Out To Insure Bush's 3rd Term
Upward
Dec 2013
#190
You can thank Liberas for that, again. But since that's not likely to happen, we are where we are
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#264
Yes, very odd. We need to keep reminding them of their constant claim that Liberals aren't needed
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#362
If the Party steps up to defend and expand the safety net, we'll win in 2014 and 2016.
winter is coming
Dec 2013
#354
I think the point is, that the People will lose. The Party may win, but the victors will be Big Corp
2banon
Dec 2013
#307
Hmmm "Deserter Democratic Left" or the "Corporatist Democratic Right" ...decisions ...decisions
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#19
Oh? And what do you imagine the "Democrats" will accomplish without "the dead weight"?
winter is coming
Dec 2013
#24
Except the ones who might leave the Party are the ones who actually oppose
winter is coming
Dec 2013
#50
Rather ironic for you to be accusing anyone of "beating the donkey". n/t
winter is coming
Dec 2013
#106
You're not aware of the huge Coalition formed before the last election by various organizations
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#74
and you'll be front and center blaming the "Deserter Democratic Left" when the dems lose
frylock
Dec 2013
#133
Dem support for President Obama has SLIPPED to a whopping 77%, liberal Dem is at 79%
Number23
Dec 2013
#153
Withdrawing into fantasy again, I see. It's like there is some switch that lets you
Egalitarian Thug
Dec 2013
#265
+1. If we're going to indulge in corporate welfare, couldn't it be for businesses that are
winter is coming
Dec 2013
#29
Dems used to stand for things the people needed, not what big business needed.
madfloridian
Dec 2013
#118
As a Democrat, i'm presuming here, you surely don't have to ask that question?
sabrina 1
Dec 2013
#122
the very fact that we are fighting desperately to save 'Obamacare" or the ACA to use its
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2013
#203
And it's a list of things that the President alone is not able to change. Check out who voted for
kelliekat44
Dec 2013
#406
wait...this is another symptom of DU...this list is ok, but the "other" list is scorned?
Sheepshank
Dec 2013
#601
Yep-- and self-described "centrists" have already proven themselves too fickle to be relied upon.
Marr
Dec 2013
#38
I have been saying this for a long time. Let us hope this is the moment in time. nt
silvershadow
Dec 2013
#51
I don't think the left is trying to take over the party. That's already happened by the right.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#68
Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Mike Gravel, Alan Greyson, Wendy Davis, Carl Sciortino...
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#470
We must take back our Party. Support progressive organizations outside the Party
rhett o rick
Dec 2013
#56
I can be contemptuously scoffed at and NOT represented by Republicans without lifting a finger.
GoneFishin
Dec 2013
#81
Yes - two wars and the collapse of the economy with his brother was nothing to be afraid of
XRubicon
Dec 2013
#178
Everyone is thinking about this all wrong! It is not about Republican and Democrat any longer.
Dustlawyer
Dec 2013
#115
Okay, I think I have been here before. They killed my president and his brother and MLK. What the
jwirr
Dec 2013
#116
I'm compelled to say that you'd enable Republicans because of selfish reasons.
great white snark
Dec 2013
#131
So you're saying..We'd be better off to have a Republican President than a Dem like Bill Clinton?
Auntie Bush
Dec 2013
#137
"If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it."
chieftain
Dec 2013
#144
+1,000,000 recs. The rich don't fear that we hate them, they fear that we don't hate each other."
mikekohr
Dec 2013
#234
Abso fucking lutely. At lease a few folks have OPENLY said in this thread and others that they want
Number23
Dec 2013
#235
+1. Shrugging off the result of another 8 years of GOP rule, with the death and discrimination, is a
freshwest
Dec 2013
#263
"I guess they value their posting privileges more than their principles." And you nailed it, Sid
Number23
Dec 2013
#286
"If the Republicans take over the House, Senate, and the White House, then so be it."
Tarheel_Dem
Dec 2013
#644
I disagree with your assessment of the Democratic Party. One thing about polical parties is
madinmaryland
Dec 2013
#147
We lost cuz Dems stayed at home when they saw the neocon agenda being furthered by our own party.
grahamhgreen
Dec 2013
#198
We won it for ya. You know what we need to do. Stop the hoarding class. C'mon, it will be fun!!!
grahamhgreen
Dec 2013
#241
Do they have to be real progressives or is it good enough to imagine that they are?
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#213
I here ya and agree. Your vote is yours and you deserve to have a say in how things work.
Phlem
Dec 2013
#227
anything is better than having the Republicans in total control. Well, no, it isn't .
AlbertCat
Dec 2013
#221
A number of Republicans have moved to the Democratic Party complaining that their party left them.
Agnosticsherbet
Dec 2013
#230
I prefer to have Republicans in office who have an R after their name rather than a D.
GoneFishin
Dec 2013
#231
Good Democrats would never sell out we the people by supporting the narrow interests of those with
indepat
Dec 2013
#246
#21 You Threaten To Form Your Own Party If You Don't Get 100% of What You Want
ConservativeDemocrat
Dec 2013
#253
Some pathetic, diluted, sold out group of empty minds voting without principles and conscience???
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#300
Anyone who knows the difference between the two parties and wants equality for all and cares
Sparky 1
Dec 2013
#373
These people are the reason the Democratic Party nearly went extinct in the 70s and 80s...
Drunken Irishman
Dec 2013
#378
Oh here we go again with TeaLeft extremism. Good. Stay home and BITCH again. Then when the ReSCUM
RBInMaine
Dec 2013
#379
Happy to kick this great OP and wonderful thread. DUer RC created this graphic to describe ...
Scuba
Dec 2013
#403
"Most Democrats do not want to hear this and refuse to accept that it will happen"
Progressive dog
Dec 2013
#407
Why be anti left Dem? What is it that causes Dems to move right instead of left?
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#432
If democracy enables the 1% control our government and ignorant minds then it has failed...
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#580
I'm sure you know that this political message board is for progressives and not just democrats...
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#587
I'll stop with this... you can go on ...but I'm done with responding to you. Not worth my free time.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#596
They also know that enough money can convince the minority that they're the majority.
winter is coming
Dec 2013
#695
Don't try to convince me that I should take one for the team by voting for politicians
GoneFishin
Dec 2013
#411
There is no way that Dems escape their RW "corporate phase" without a paying a price
Teamster Jeff
Dec 2013
#446
Jeff, the Teamsters are paying a price for their "corporate phase" c'est pas. n/t
saidsimplesimon
Dec 2013
#456
We don't provide most of the money to the Party, but we are essential to its electability.
leveymg
Dec 2013
#453
We ARE the Party! Who is this 'we' you are talking about? You don't seem comfortable here among
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#706
No, it belongs to the people. Not the groups that pull out Koch money...
woo me with science
Dec 2013
#546
That’s the illusion of any real difference speaking, backed up by no real change.
fleabiscuit
Dec 2013
#534
If she does run and become prez, will she put the people ahead of corporations?
polichick
Dec 2013
#554
Agreed. As many Democrats say they support Hillary as supported any Democratic Presidential
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#535
If corporate Hillary wins don't blame me. I won't vote for her under any circumstances.
GoneFishin
Dec 2013
#542
That's what the Tea Party said about Romney, and look how well it turned out for them.
Beacool
Dec 2013
#552
GOTV is now the problem, since the 'beaten downs' know the rich and their two parties don't need
ancianita
Dec 2013
#544
Post any kind of divisive %$&* stirring and the usual folks get in line to lick the spoon.
great white snark
Dec 2013
#620
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers: "Real Change Is Closer Than You Think"
proverbialwisdom
Dec 2013
#621
You guys rock DU. The Democratic Party? Not so much. Looks like you marshalled all the forces....
Tarheel_Dem
Dec 2013
#635
300 recs = an "illusion" of grandeur. Hell, you could pick up 300 recs from the tree place, y'know?
Tarheel_Dem
Dec 2013
#639
I'm sorry, as a minority lgbt female, I do not have any choice but to vote for Democrats. If
Zorra
Dec 2013
#643
This implies that there is no difference between republicans and Democrats, and I reject that
lostincalifornia
Dec 2013
#676
Sensitive aren't you. I did NOT imply you should or should not leave, YOU DID in your OP.
lostincalifornia
Dec 2013
#679
I agree. Bill Clinton, I believe, set the foundation for where the Democratic party is today,
lostincalifornia
Dec 2013
#681
He definitely moved it to the right, and his policies of deregulation were right out of
lostincalifornia
Dec 2013
#683
I think so too. At the very least her candidacy would force an honesty on the other candidates
lostincalifornia
Dec 2013
#686
You have a point, but I think it might be different with Warren, maybe wishful thinking
lostincalifornia
Jan 2014
#704