That neither Democrats nor Republicans are liberal or conservative. They are greedy or plain political opportunists. Or something else that has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

There are a few conservative Democrats. THERE ARE NO LIBERAL REPUBLICANS.

to keep their dominance.. keep out a third party. Just one example.

And advocating for 3rd parties is against DU's TOS. For good reason.

I just stated that they work against having one. I could say both parties work against having Canada invade us... that does not mean I advocate Canada invading us. lol

They call themselves The Third Way for a reason.

They're just not rich enough to get into the House or Senate, even at the state level.

It was not always so, and if you search the net worth of those who "make it" into both Houses, you'll notice very little difference in one fact - they all have to be rich. County the millionaires, bald guy.

Count em.

...you don't really have a liberal party in the US. You have a centre-right party and an outright fascist party.

getting re-elected is most common.

Obamacare=Romneycare -- Crowd out actual social insurance by forcing people to buy overpriced private coverage and call it "reform."

Appoint someone who is in bed with the largest industry monopoly to regulate that industry. (FCC, media, Comcast) And then allow that industry minion to gut the concept of an open Internet, so that monopoly can take over what has become a basic part of our social and economic infrastructure.

If a Republican did things like that you're be up in arms. But it's okay when a Democrat does it.

Sid

I would think that Women's Health, Environmental Issues, Education Funding, Unions, Marriage Equality, etc. are rather dramatic divides between the two parties that are obvious to anyone who maintains even a modicum of objectivity...

Edits in italics

always seem to use Fox News as their starting point. And they never seem to be able to muster up the brain cells to be able hold the GOP to the same standard.

DU is full of people trying to hold the Party's feet to the fire. Their starting point is generally progressive media outlets and dollops of good old common sense. Try reading the board.

Still, maybe that was your first attempt at obfuscation and building a straw man. Don't be discouraged; I'm sure you'll get better at it. Now, can I get you some more Kool-Aid?

Who, for example, do you think published Greenwald's story.

(Hint it was a very large established ultra-liberal British newspaper not owned by anyone like Rupert Murdoch..)

You cant get much further away from Fox News than that.

And spends most of his time attacking Democrats & promoting RW libertarians.

Can't get much closer to Faux Snooze than that.

Do your homework and tell me if those news establishments are part of any liberal media.

There IS no liberal media… only the allowable content therein… Sheesh...

First of all look up The Guardian and its history. It is hardly likely to be engaged in subterfuge to elect a Republican as President of the US.

And scondly, y'all are treating this like Greenwald is employed by Karl Rove to elect a Republican, and Snowen is just some goofy Dick Tuck type political trickster they hired. I don't think paying someone to have to go into exile with no hope of returning without fear of spending the rest of your life in prison is a job description many would take on.

I think I've been cross posting too much today. My point was to inform bald guy that any one newspaper would never define any one platform on behalf of all journalists within. The fact remains after seeing what the NYTs did before the war in Iraq, I lost faith in what those newspapers stood for. The Guardian, OTOH, has seemed to use old fashioned probing to get the real story.

… is that it's fair and accurate. It's the best of any of the world-wide media in coverage.

Yeah, that would be a puzzle.

(That is a very small group) !!!!

The voters did their job in 2008 and 2012.

The politicians abandoned the voters, not the other way around.

They bent over backwards to appease to Republican Party.

They have caused this country to swerve hard to the right.

They allow themselves to be bullied, blackmailed, tricked, and slandered on a daily basis.

They vote yes to war.

They vote yes to Wall Street bailouts.

They vote yes to the Patriot Act.

They vote yes to the NSA.

They choose to look forwards not backwards.

The U.S. did not get into the shape it is in because of one political party.

I don't know how many times I have seen Representative Alan Grayson slammed on this site.

The U.S. could use 1000 more just like him.

If the Democratic Party can not do the job they were elected to do, than we need a Plan B.

of the late great Hugo Chavez I find that amusing.

I don't know you well enough to be insulted.

I don't watch ANY corporate controlled main stream news.

Now, would you like to address any of the issues in my post ?

P.S. I support Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, and Elizabeth Warren.

I don't think any of them are well liked at the Fox's fake news channel.

which is that the real-existing Democratic Party under its actual leadership and in its actual lawmaking and executive activities bears little resemblance to the ideal party of the OP...

why, you're just some FOXNEWS, Koch-snorting, libertarian-loving, pro-Putin, people-hatin' Republican submarine.

It really is that simple.

Sid

Why do some democrats support charter schools and privatization of our public school system? Where are the democrats looking to stop offshoring and protect US jobs? Are democrats protecting the environment? Why can't we completely stop fracking in CA with a dem majority when we don't have enough water for farmers and are already an earthquake prone area? I know republicans don't care and cause harm. Who doesn't? JFK died before I was born. Wish we had leaders like him again. Feel like all I've seen is a country slipping slowly backwards

Are an attack on labor in this country.

The Larry Summers memo said we should move more jobs to less developed countries because the people will die from natural causes before they are affected by all the pollution we dump there.

Clinton and Obama both embraced this pile of shit.

... but if you're referring to the conservatives who have taken control of the national - and many state - Democratic Party entities, then I must disagree.

Those who are running the Party now, and picking most of our candidates, are not going to be our saviours. We need to do that ourselves.

That movement is not yet organized into an effective political force, so perhaps the Democratic Party is the best we have, for now.

But stating it is the only and last hope is to reject the possibility of something better.

Reject the possibility? The objective, it seems to me, is to kill the possibility.

It should be pretty obvious the two are often not synonymous and that justified criticism of corporate Dems does not equate to supporting Rethugs, so I can see where you're coming from. Nevertheless it's true that, except on rare occasions, the only viable choice is between a Democratic politician and a Republican politician. The latter must be defeated.

But the Democratic Party needs to change for the better. Unqualified support and suppression of criticism stifles much-needed progress.

I don't see how the Party itself can be supplanted by a different entity, and until that becomes a real possibility we need to work from within to improve it.

Because, in American history third parties only become major parties by feeding off the carcasses of failed major parties.

I specifically stated the Democratic Party needs to get better and that we need to work from within to improve it.

I also pointed out the Democratic Party (at least for now) is the only viable means to defeat Republicans. Personally, I would support a third party candidate only if there was instant runoff voting.

If the Democratic Party will be destroyed it will be because it drifts further away from liberal/progressive causes and does less to serve the interests of ordinary citizens. Stifling legitimate criticism and blindly supporting politicians regardless of whose interests they serve is the surest way to motivate voters to support third parties or abnandon participatory democracy altogether.

I don't want to destroy the Democratic Party; I want to save it.

Your attitude, whether you realize it or not, is more likely to have the opposite effect.

Sorry, but you do not emulate the democratic party or what my father fought so far for. No, I'm not sorry for saying that, I'm proud of saying so. You fool no one but a very few willing to bullshit themselves. Which is sad.

Indicates you know less than absolutely nothing about me, and strongly implies you're attempting to inject your faulty assumptions & mostly bad information into the conversation.

My rant is based on the fact that some of the loudest & most obnoxious here openly espouse a RW libertarian ideology, or would be more happy with a small, ineffective & marginalized party which is ideologically pure (with whatever ideology they may be presently enamored), but be unable to get anything done, rather than what we actually have - a broad coalition of many interests working together toward a better future for everybody. Because that's the whole point, isn't it?

There is NO broad coalition of interests.

There is the party of MONEY & POWER, and everyone else who is told to vote the lesser of two evils every election cycle.

That idea drives good liberal people away from the polls & good liberal candidates away from running at all levels of govt, and allows the conservative scumbags that remain to win & control things. The GOP is perfectly happy when less than 50% of the people vote. It's the only way they can win.

The ONLY way to change things is to get involved.

that shtick is very tired and weak.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing."

You heavily implies than people should do nothing. Unless you don't understand the implications of your own statements.

That is up to the individual.

Maybe, if you are concerned that people will walk away from the poles instead of voting the lesser of two evils, the party should make it so that people do not feel that they are choosing the lesser of two evils. This can be accomplished via actions taken by the party and current elected officials.

Don't you guys ever get tired of spouting this lie?

(Obviously that's a dumb question on my part -- OF COURSE YOU DON'T).

Sometimes I think some people just find a convenient buzzword that they assume is insulting without really knowing what the hell it actually means.

Therefoe "left-wing ideologue" also logically means "libertarian conservative."

When the people who claim to represent those principles spend their time golfing with CEOs and appointing industry henchmen to regulate those industries, then they deserve to be called out.

When they negotiate trade deals that will undermine the position of workers, and bring back the same Wall St. insiders who wreaked the economy to "fix" the economy, that needs to be pointed out.

"And it's astonishing that this simple fact needs to be reiterated on a web site called Democratic Underground."

What's astonishing is that so many people who believe in those stated principles have to spend their time fending off actions by Democratic politicians because those politicians too often behave like Republicans.

...do that is even remotely close to any brand of conservatism, and the mere suggestion that there might be some policies that Democratic politicians espouse that are harmful to the Democrats and progressive ideologies as a whole is RW troll nonsense, meant only to divide and conquer us. LET NO ONE SAY OTHERWISE OR BE PROVEN AS THE TROLLS THEY ARE!

Naturally, the idea that such ideological purity tests splits the base and leaves liberal voters behind and disillusioned in no way whatsoever plays into the RW's hands, because then we might have to apply paragraph one to my entire idea.

(Ideological purity tests are stupid.)

I may lose a few friends.
Lol

There are no real "liberals" among the ones making the decisions as to who gets to run.

So we get to choose from one corporate Republican-lite or another and somehow, our liberal principles will be upheld? I don't
think so.

No, I think we have to start at the local level. Start taking back school boards and state legislature with TRUE progressives, then capture the party from within.

Or start a new one.