Yeah.....this guy's either insane or he's an extreme asshole. Either way, good thing MIRT took him out on time.

I just finished this article. I enjoyed it immensely.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/al-franken-minnesota-senate-model-progressive-campaign

Hope he runs.

....we were stuck with either Crazy Thom or Third Way Kay. Some choice down here in NC.

Like it! Like him!!

I'd love to vote for him for prez. I think he'd appeal to a broad range of rational people. And he'd act on behalf of PEOPLE once in office. Real people that is, not the SC version of corporations as people.

Thanks for posting!!!

I hear this over and over, I need to see facts.

for beginners.

In threads where people discuss how to prevent more radicalization of youth in the ME, they always forget that we could, you know, just stop bombing the crap out of them.

It would probably do our image abroad a whole lot of good if people weren't living in constant terror of being killed by an invisible specter. But that isn't an option because people from the ME are scary

Quit constantly manoeuvring to allow American-created multinationals to exploit their people and resources? Quit propping up their dictators? Provide them with equipment to build infrastructure such as roads, electric lines, hospitals, schools, water and sewer plants, cell towers for their own benefit? Aid their citizens in starting 'microbusinesses', rather than leaving them languishing in abject poverty?

Themselves, even before there was a USA, explain this problem. Have you ever heard "everyone around us was poor and we did not realize we were also"?

You are listening to the wrong news, switch now and get the real facts. Islam is a peaceful religion, we brought the war to them. Gave their land to Israel, supported Israel in their many massacres, don't hold Israel accountable. Then came to ME and killed hundreds of thousands of them and guess what, they pretty much hate us now. No surprise at all, we earned their hate.

ME? History books will prove you wrong. These wars was occurring before 1492, can't blame those on the USA, guess it makes you wrong. In fact Islam did not begin until around 600 AD, they were fighting before 600 AD.

I also didn't state that they had no wars before we interferred and turned the ME into a blood bath with us involved. Yes, Sunni's and Shia's have fought a long time, but we were not involved until we inserted ourselves where we didn't belong.

Wars are not unusual in the area so all wars does not lie at the feet of the US. I never agreed to the invasion of Iraq, knew it was a bad move and as cruel as Saddam was it kept the lid on many countries around, especially Iran but I would say it seems to be entertainment for them.

And replaced Mosssadegh with the likes of the Shah, to protect what would later be the BP Oil company to keep Iranian oil controlled by it in British and other western countries' hands. When we had the CIA empower the shift to a very bad dictatorship of the Shah where the CIA-empowered Savak wreaked havoc on that country, can you blame the Iranian people for being PO'd at us? At the time it had nothing to do with religion, but our actions in effect empowered the religious zealouts like the Ayatollah there to take power.

Sorry, but we weren't "spreading democracy" there then, much like we aren't doing that now, but trying to keep control of governments over there to do our bidding.

I'm certainly no fan of theocratic nutjobs, but terrorism against the United States is far more about our foreign policy than their religion.

Furthermore, while there's certainly a place for the military, we will never be able to change them. All we can do is change our own behavior. Everywhere we bomb in the last severity years seems to be just as unstable, except now they hate us even more.

Good points

It baffles me how war hawks, Including apparently Hillary, think we can just bomb them into not hating us. Or that if it is all about religion, then is blowing up their countries going to make them come to Jebus and drop their own centuries own faith? You are right, we can only change OUR behaviour.

Just watched the great documentary The Kill Team, about the unit in Afghanistan that went around setting up innocent civilians with grenades and weapons in order to murder them for "fun". Multiply these poor victim's surviving family by thousands, millions even, of foreign civilians that feel betrayed and terrorized by the USA. I'd say that even ISIL would not have the hold on so many if they didn't feel like they had nowhere to go because they are also afraid of Americans, (as Bowie sang about).

That in a nutshell is US Foreign Policy backed by Republicans..

Saving the environment then this method is failing the test. You may not like Wall Street but how do you blame this on Third Way and DLC, Wall Street was operating much before either if these excuses came along. The GOP is the party of no regulations, blame them.

Where does it benefit our country? Why do we not distinguish the tar sands oil from the cleaner crude? Why do we have to help Canada, Koch Brothers, and the Big Oil Senators? Which is more important: water aquifer or oil?

Be more, we can choose to transport in a safer manner or continue the present delivery mode.

Or pay for damages to our environment?

That's real bright!

It saves tax payers from participating in corporate welfare.

SOLAR and WIND are the true Third Way,energy wise.

There are lots of products which comes from oil which is not fuel. What we can do is use as much solar, wind and water power as possible and make transportation and refining of oil products as safe and environmentally as possible. Currently the transportation of crude by rail is not safe as proven in the past.

"Give up everthing furnished by oil products" vs. supporting renewable energy/being against Keystone XL. If that is third-way logic, I want nothing to do with it.

Keystone XL is bad because it makes it cheaper and easier to exploit some of the dirtiest energy in the world. We have plenty of cleaner oil and gas. Even better, if we have more renewables, more oil can go to make oil based products instead of for energy, driving down the cost of both.

I am really trying hard to understand your point and motivations in backing Keystone XL. Have not been successful yet.

In our world today we have not installed enough solar, wind or water power to do without oil products. There are lots of products besides gas for your vehicle, trains, trucks, buses and planes needs in order to operate. Years before oil production was necessary but fossil fuels was used and was not the cleanest but used anyway. People actually walked and rode horses and buggies, etc to travel. You must also realize other bi-products of oil which we have become accustomed to using so to completely do away with crude may not be what many are nit willing to give up.

I gave not been kind to KXL, but when I hear of trains derailing and having large spills and some near people's homes it is oblivious this method of transportation is not safe, perhaps because if our failing rails. Then I have to look at the best method to transport this crude, it is better in a pipeline than rail.

No one is advocating banning oil (well, almost no one). That is a classic strawman argument. And the pipeline vs. rail car is flawed because you are not accounting for externalities or other options.

Let's assume you are correct, pipeline vs. rail car, pipeline wins in safety (frankly, I don't know). But the pipleline comes with HUGE environmental costs by making it cheaper and easier to exploit some of the dirtiest energy on the planet. So is the solution capitulation? The Third-Way would make you think so. But the solution, in my opinion, is not to capitulate but to restrict the use of rail cars or more heavily regulate them so they are safer. It will accomplish two goals - increase the cost to exploit that resource (a good thing) and make rail cars safer.

See, everybody wins (except the tar sand oil producers, but I am ok with that).

I just don't think we need to use as much as we are using now, and we definitely don't need to be using THAT oil (tar sands).

Obama proposing Chained CPI is a bridge too far for traditional Democrats, and certainly not in the best interest of the people. To the right-wing variety Democrat though, it makes sense. That's one for ya anyway...there's more but I'm pretty sure you probably already know the differences without needing to have them pointed out to you.

The country needs it, and 2/3 want it (would probably be 90% if not for corporate propaganda). Yet our current HHS secretary and our candidate for 2016 have both declared that single payer will not happen as long as they have something to say about it.

A real nightmare I see happening, been in the works since 2005 Bush at least, secret mtgs.
Europeans are rightfully concerned about becoming 'a colony of the US, etc.' via TTIP.

I'd add education deform a la Arne Duncan. So now what? You dismiss all of this and go on your merry way acting like conservadems have the 99%'s back?

Lemmeno when they stop supporting that.

The phoneys calling for purges & litmus tests for people who aren't "liberal" enough - by the phoneys definition, of course - are looking for purity. And they're perfectly willing to let America to be overrun by the RW barbarians while they do it.

nt

for the Democratic party to be the RW barbarians?

and insults isn't really making an argument. Just for future reference.

They're the ones calling for purges & litmus tests against those who aren't sufficiently "liberal" - by the purists definition, of course.

They just rent the democrats. I'd be honored to help purge the Democratic Party of republicans.

There is a difference between fucking over democrats to help republicans and fucking over Third Way democrats and their corporatist agenda to help New Deal democrats. You know, the democrats who still give a rats ass about what happens to you and your family?

are those already itching to kick people off DU for not liking Clinton as a nominee.

And it sounds like you don't support people wanting their candidates to reflect their positions on important issues. That's what you're really talking about with this "litmus test" talk. Yeah we want someone who agrees with us on things. Oh no. What a horrible...oh wait that's called a fucking democracy.

They want to bypass the democratic process, weaken the party, alienate the great majority of the electorate, and ensure a Republican victory on 2016.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5788509

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5815637

Authoritarians do purges. Purists do litmus tests. Neither are in the Democratic Party tradition.

...Kay Hagen, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Manchin et al. are bought and paid for fair and square. It's simple pay to play and they are well compensated by their corporate masters. When it comes to you, baldguy, or the big money, you're screwed. Unless of course you can cough up a few million to support an election / re-election campaign. I cannot, thus under their rule I'm just as screwed as if they were Republicans. The only difference is, they take the time to make us feel a little better while the same screwing proceeds undaunted.

That's something. I suppose.

...what 30 years ago constituted the heart of the Republican party (now middle of the road Dems) instead of those running populist, progressive campaigns is turning America over to the RW barbarians. The last election is case in point. Need Harry Truman to clear that up for you, or what?

Is what makes up the majority of the American electorate. The sane populist, progressive voters you claim to represent are the very people your litmus tests & purges would alienate & expel from the party. People like Harry Truman among them.

You really want the GOP to have a permanent majority, don't you?

And states like Oregon, where we had decent voter turnout compared to the rest of the states, actually elected decent Democrats like Merkley who stood strongly as a representative of the people and not special interest money.

A majority of people when given sections of what Obamacare is about and what it provides WANTS those sections very heavily. It is when it is called "Obamacare", due to the constant corrupt messages of the NON-LIBERAL corporate media, they reject it based on that naming of this program. And I think you would be surprised how many people would rather have medicare for all instead of Obamacare (aka SINGLE PAYER) or at least a public option, despite the corporate Dems along with Republicans doing corporate interest's bidding in keeping that out of Obamacare so that the insurance companies can continue to leach money out of the system.

If you look at 2010 and 2014, it was the corporate democrats that people like Rahm Emanuel chose to push over progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries that LOST their offices. As was noted and as Truman said, if you have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican, those wanting a Republican will pick the real thing, and those not wanting it are just as likely to stay home.

If you really want Democrats regaining control in our government, you'd not play the 3rd way purity test of leadership to have us continue to go down that LOSER'S path and bring back government that would seed for the control of the government to be in the hands of the people instead of the 1%.

Which is an attitude that you wish to nurture & help to grow, with your purges & litmus tests.

The majority of people agree with US on nearly every issue. We need to work to get people to JOIN liberals, not make up excuses exclude them.

I just said that majorities in those states WANTED an increase in the minimum wage, as do I. Those voters could help WIN Democrats elections instead of losing them, if we'd champion causes such as those that work for the people, and not continue to play footsie with corporate interests?

Are we being "purist" to not want to have the corruption of special interest money being spent in order to curry favor for the 1%? Do you really think that is what a majority of American voters (not the 1% lobbyists necessarily) want? I would contend it is this corruption which the Third Way/DLC crowd wants to embrace which IS THE REASON why many of these Democrats lost. And if you go through who lost in 2010, and 2014, you'd see that is more of the corporate Democrats that lost in those elections, not those that were more concerned about working for their people.

I'm not about excluding LIBERALS! It is the Third Way and DLC types like Rahm Emanuel who are calling us "f'ing retarded" and take our votes for granted and making an effort to EXCLUDE liberals from the power structure of the party's decision making and platform process.

You're right, we shouldn't be making excuses (like this "purity" nonsense) to exclude liberals from the Democratic Party. We need to stop this nonsense from the Third Way/DLC that is doing this or tell them to go take a hike so that we CAN get them to join this party and be convinced we are working for them, and not the corporations that have been screwing them for decades now.

Hate to tell you, but there are a lot of Republicans in DC. And some of your favorite candidates speak to them sometimes. Even Elizabeth Warren (who actually was a registered Republican most of her adult life BTW.)

There's always going to be some part of your purity test that candidate doesn't live up to. To fucking bad! That's the nature of politics in pluralistic heterogeneous country: compromise! If you don't like it, try some other political system than democracy.

Of all the lessons we could have taken from the GOP: the party loyalty, getting out the vote, the bottom-up organization, and the million other things needed to provide a consistent turnout from the base - a no compromise stance is not one of them. That's something Teabaggers do, and has led us to the current situation.

Hey, he won a war, he got us through a depression and a world war....and was on his way to becoming a king, except for his ill health.

Never mind he was in the lap of Wall Street, locked up a huge chunk of the population in the desert as a consequence of their race, and didn't desegregate the military even though his wife thought it was past time (and what better time than a World War, when everyone's back is to the wall?)....

He's pure enough around here. Then again, he's dead and he can't talk back and he can't make any more mistakes.

He really sees absolutely no problem with modern Dems who hold ancient Republican ideology near and dear. He actually thinks it's 'good' to win elections as 'Dems' and then churn out old school Republican legislation after 'winning'.

And that's the problem with the 'centrists'. They're Republicans who got embarrassed to be associated with the nutjobs on the right wing of their own party, so they think it's a wonderful thing to take over the Democratic Party and push out their own RW agenda, all while calling the Dems they want to push out of the Dem Party as being too far left 'phonies'.

And yet, all over this thread, it must be explained again and again and again and again...

the obvious. I've been around the block many times and what's going on is damned obvious to me.

the country. I'm tired of it!

just like Heritage Care is now part of our national corporate handout

But I respected him and felt -- rightly or wrongly -- that he couldn't be bought.

There are some issues where I don't see eye to eye with Bernie or Elizabeth either.
But I believe that neither -- at least so far -- is beholden to Wall Street.

Frankly, I think it's a bit misleading to say that the party runs the risk of selling out to right wingers. I think the primary issue we need to be concerned with is neoliberalism. A Third Way candidate may be the champion of gender, race, and marriage equality, for example, while she's privatizing our public spaces, robbing our pensions, destroying what's left of our unions, neglecting our infrastructure, imposing austerity on the majority in order to pad the wallets of a few, and sending our kids off to war.

In fact, we might actually be able to find some common ground with them on issues like privacy, health care, clean air and water, and a living wage.

That doesn't mean we have to become homophobic, misogynistic, Flat Earthers in order to do so.

What rightwingers are there who are not in favor of unregulated free markets?

It sounds as though you are describing right-wing libertarianism, as epitomized by the heartless, execrable Ayn Rand. Other right wingers may be defined by excessive nationalism or religious fundamentalism. The original disciples of Rand were market fundamentalists but atheists. That aspect obviously wouldn't sit well with right wing Christians. Other right wingers may be highly provincial and communitarian. Paleo conservatives and right wing populists are as distrustful of corporations as many progressives are.

Neoliberals can be atheists or not atheists. They can be provincial and communitarian or not. They are still neoliberals.

Neoliberalism is strictly about advocating free markets and elimination of government regulation of economic activities. Whether a person is atheist, etc. has nothing to do with whether they advocate that.

Who are the rightwingers who favor more government regulation of markets?

You state that there's even one Dem you won't vote for in a given year, and they write you off completely, no matter that you've voted for far more Dems over the course of your voting career than the 'mythical middle' "swing voters" will ever vote for. They want the guys who might vote Dem 50% of the time, but not the ones who vote Dem 95% of the time? Something smells rotten in that math, and it's the smell of people who want nothing more than to drag the Democratic Party ever farther rightward into conservative pro-corporate ideology.

One of the best strategies to avoid being called a fascist is to call your opponent a fascist first.

On a related note, I was appalled in several instances when Clinton (still SOS at the time, I believe) publicly condemned un-provoked aggression by other groups, using a description that sounded uncannily like our very own foreign policy.

Since they support libertarians, you should call them what they really are. Their concern trolling has been noted and dismissed as just more shit stirring.

It is a handful of extremists using the 'purity' meme...thankfully most of this site laughs them off or ignores them.

If only so and so were President. I thought Obsma would do such and such and I'm disappointed. It's couched in those terms. If only the presidency was held by a very liberal "fighter" that is all it will take.

64%, inevitability, record numbers and stuff, don't you know? We MUST get behind the DLC and Third Way-approved candidates right this very second. We haven't a minute to lose to such foolishness as seeing who runs, hearing what they have to say or, God forbid, actually casting VOTES in caucuses and primaries....

Considering yet again the Democratic party has yet again fallen on 40 % as far as name brand low... which they keep hitting. further looking shows sharp downs on Democrats view of the party , and independents. oddly the last one I checked showed Republicans perception of Democrats has gone from 8 % to 9 % which kinda shows the direction the Dems have been going. RIGHT.. if Democrats and independents are both down but Republicans what little there are is the only group who think Democrats are doing better there's something wrong. (gallup would be the source)

distract us so we'll fall for expensive, counterfeit, knock-off Democratic candidates. I want a F. Roosevelt Dem not a B. Clinton type. One's butter and the other is margarine. It's an issue of real, authentic, not pure. So it's useless to curse at us or be put out just because so many of us find margarine completely indigestible.

Thanks, kentuck.

if they think Hillary is "Progressive"~ (hint: she's not)

http://www.coha.org/the-trans-pacific-partnership-free-trade-at-what-costs/

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem

http://www.naturalnews.com/045924_Hillary_Clinton_GMOs_biotech_industry.html

I wish faithfully blind democrats would take the time to learn about what Hill has actually done. But if they are Pro-GMO, Pro Energy over Environment, Pro Wall Street, Pro-offshore drilling, Pro-unregulated fracking, Pro-outsourcing jobs overseas, well then, I can see why they'd want her as president. They are also Republicans and shouldn't be calling themselves Democrats.

And she is no Republican.

n/t

...and by that I mean both her stances AND what being a "good" Democrat actually means anymore...

divide and conquer

"Pro-GMO, Pro Energy over Environment, Pro Wall Street, Pro-offshore drilling, Pro-unregulated fracking, Pro-outsourcing jobs overseas"
You are NOT a democrat. These positions are anti America and pro corporate.

the Left, who the Third Way hate with a passion. More even than the Right hates the left.

It's began to show up around the time the Third Way/DLC began appearing on Democratic Forums, OPENLY.

I remember well when we began to see these attacks on Liberal Dems on online forums.

'Purity troll' was what they called Progressives acting like Democrats. They sure are scared of the Left.

At this point they need new talking points, the 'Purity, Pure garbage is way old and only proves what Progressives have known for a long time, that the Third Way wants to purge the Dem Party of what they view as a threat to their plans to turn the Dem Party into Republican Lite.

Their arrogant and condescending mannerisms caused a huge amount of blowback and now they are desperately trying to blame the Left for their total failure on Nov 4th and failure here on DU with the right wing talking points.

Notice only the extremists are buying into it?

'deal' with the 'left' has indeed backfired on them. Whoever thought all this up isn't very bright. From the first day I began to see these talking points, 'concern troll', 'purity troll', 'ponies' etc it was obvious this was prepared by a Think Tank to aim at those inconvenient Liberals who simply will not just 'go along' because they are HONEST and DECENT people who abhor deception and lies and arrogance.

I should make up a list of those talking points so people recognize them when they see them.

They did get their asses handed to them, twice now. And it will continue until they have no more influence over this party.

What most of us seem to want is someone who's willing to follow the ideas of FDR, LBJ, etc.

At least that's how I see it

Thanks for pointing out the pure vs true differential.

A true democrat in the highest office would be nice. A populist. More true dems in the states too!!

I have NO idea what a "Pure Democrat" would be like.

It may differ by what we see as the main issue.

Just someone who is not activley trying to destory us only slightly less than the gop. We uncerstand there is a difference between jail and execution, but do we have to love the jailors who spit on everyone who is not rich?

If I hear that phrase one more time, I'm going to puke. What "Loony Left" really means is "progressive idea that has not yet been tried because--horror of horrors--it might actually help someone"!

The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
(as small as it is getting).

it is they that are in the minority here and in the wider public arena.

All the "purity" and assorted less than flattering labels/characterization they toss about are really just efforts intended for and designed to avoid having to defend the indefensible. The reality is, if they are the spokespeople for what the heart and soul of the dem party is supposed to be these days, given the treatment they've given the thirdway critics, then it's easy to see why so many feel as if the dem party "left them".

It seems to me that given all of this, they are best seen as desperate rats flailing about in a last ditch effort to keep their raunchy ship afloat.

I've been locking horns with that type for better than a decade now on other boards, but it wasn't until I got here a couple of years ago that I found those that are virually indistinguishable from their rightwing cousins in tersm of argumentation -- or should I say an almost total lack of it unless the aforementioned dependence on and use of villianization qualifies as such.

I`m going to stick with tried and true, old-fashioned Democratic values. Think Paul Wellstone.

Every time I read garbage on DU about unicorns and ponies and purification, I shake my head. Times may be a-changin`, but Democratic principles are not. Look back at the war protestors, the Civil Rights marchers, social and economic justice advocates. I guarantee you`ll not find the majority of them fighting to make Wall Street richer or fighting to pay teachers less or fighting to jail more juveniles.

The Republicans....and Democrats who support Republican positions....have PLENTY of support in Congress. They don`t need any more nodding, genuflecting advocates.

What this party does need is a return to our roots and a commitment to stand for something, win or lose.