I will remind her of this any chance I get. Appalling.

Is it's not a directional term. Republicans cutting social security can be progress. Apparently a Democrat signing Welfare Reform (cuts) into reality, is progress. Agreeing to allow lower taxes on the rich, with Obama was apparently "Progress."

So I'd like to wipe the word "Progressive" from existence, and recapture the word "liberal," redefining it as the good word it is, the word that means you're caring, and empathetic, that you want work to pay, you think we can all at least have a minimal existence, that you don't want homelessness and hunger, that you want to make life better in this country for everyone.

20th century.

The Progressive Era was a period of social activism and political reform in the United States that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1] One main goal of the Progressive movement was eliminating corruption in government by exposing and undercutting political machines and their bosses and establishing further means of direct democracy. Progressives also sought regulation of monopolistic trust corporations through antitrust laws, which were seen as a means to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers.

Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.[2] At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.[3] A second theme was building an Efficiency Movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing, and bring to bear scientific, medical and engineering solutions; a key part of the efficiency movement was scientific management, or "Taylorism".

Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history,[4] economics,[5] and political science.[6] In academic fields the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and Charles Evans Hughes on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side.

Initially the movement operated chiefly at local levels; later it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people.[7] The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe[8] and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[9] Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system".[10][11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

Clearly, the Progressives of today do not support the same kinds of reform (for example the creation of the Fed) and might even want to do away with a few of the reforms of the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But the common aspiration is to reform and clean up government. Get rid of the corruption that the Third-Wayers in the Democratic Party and all of the Republican Party condone and participate in in many cases.

Let's "modernize" education
http://www.thirdway.org/report/what-americans-want-from-democrats-on-education

Someone here told me Pew did fake polls to advance conservatives. The link you give definitely proves that's true, to me anyways, their viewpoint is republican, that's for sure.

Thanks for the link Mnpaul!

I think they have already abandoned those issues so he could point to the "success" of the Democratic Party over the past few election cycles as exhibit A of WHEN they abandon those issues the Democratic Party is unsuccessful. They stand for very little in terms of values and vision. They are simply NOT Republicans, and there is value in that on social issues, but not much else (except on a relative scale).

The New Democrats are really the Old Republicans.

still going strong with a great lineup

6-8 Matt McNeil(a great local talent)
8-11 Stephanie Miller
11-2 Thom Hartmann
2-3 Democracy Now
3-5 The Daily Report(local show)
5-8 Norman Goldman
8-11 Mike Malloy
11-12 Leslie Marshall
12-3 Malloy Again
3-5 Hartmann best of
5-6 Democracy Now
http://www.am950radio.com/

what's not to love

Bravo.

They tell you "it would be worse if you vote for a republican" as though being slightly better than awful was a big selling point.

It's disgusting. Revolt is brewing.

for awhile, but how did this happen? I know the Clintons are strictly "Third way",

but even that doesn't seem enough reason, at least to me.

Seriously, does anyone know the probable reasons for this odd alliance

of the Bush and Clinton families?

Bill was covering up for Poppy Bush beginning with IranContra. Photos of those two picnicking together in the early 80s are revolting.

Do you have those pictures?...I'm not disbelieving you, it just seems strange because BC was just governor of Arkansas

In the Eighties & Idon't understand the connection.

Reagan put Poppy Bush in charge of the Southern Border fighting the Drug War. We all know what that meant...allowing protected drug corridors for CIA cocaine running to support the Contras. I even saw in 1998 a CIA rep admitting this on CNN. There is a documentary special on Freeway Ricky Ross and the whole deal on Al Jazeera America next week. I find it interesting that Cheneys office was put in charge of amti-terrorism coordination and then we had 9-11. But I digress...Clinton was in charge of the state that had tons of cocaine through it and probably looked the other way when our government planes were smuggling for Poppy. I recall when Clinto was unknown and surging in '91. At the PBS roundtable debate Jerry Brown had a photo of Sam Nunn and Bill inspecting a bootcamp. All the prisoners were Black, drug arrested, and chain-ganged in stripped fatigues. It looked racist. Bill turned beet red and threatened Jerry on live TV saying,"You don't know what you're messing with, Jerry." It was clear to me he was the safe, back-up candidate in case Bush lost which happened due to Perot's meddling. Then Bill covered up for Bush crimes and questionable IranContra pardons. Any he is called Bush's 5th son now as he is essentially part of that family. The photo I actually saw on DU...it is a photo of Bush Sr as VP at a picnic sitting at a table with a young Clinton and none other than Gov. George Wallace. I think Bill is drinking a pepsi.

I myself, tend to call everyone "bro".

It's a patriarchal society, unfortunately, so "male" is always the default assumption.

In any case, thanks for your info.

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)

OMG..Clinton is certainly young there, but look at Poppy Bush shaking hands with George Effing Wallace!?

As to Poppy, you do know that some people (not nuts, either) think he was involved
in the murder of JFK, right? Russ Baker in his book "Family of Secrets" hints at it strongly, documenting, among other things, that George H.W. then a congressman, was in Texas that day.

Poppy later said he "didn't remember" where he was the day JFK died, which just MAY be a first clue, as everyone then living over the age of 5,* remembers where they were that day.

I believe the memory of his whereabouts that day, later "returned" to him, but the initial denial is, IMO, more than a tad suspicious.



*Self included.

the Third Way and Conservative Democrats. They support H. Clinton-Sachs. Currently Sen Warren is carrying too much of the load. Other progressive Reps and Senators need to step up and speak out.

holding their feet to the fire. Too many Democrats are happy to claim "it can't be done", and keep voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Anyone who does attempt to hold feet to the fire are shit on as "not getting their pony" or being an "Obama hater" (soon to be Clinton hater)

I have worked for Dems the last 8 elections. No more. I have done my part and been told to STFU.

They want my support now, they are going to need to earn it. No more hoping they do the right thing, either do the right thing and earn my support or continue to suck up to the power brokers and lose it.

the DEmocratic structure. We need to change the Democratic Machine structure but we need to get progressives in in positions of leadership.

...never, EVER send money to the DCCC or DSCC.
They WILL use your money against your economic interests.

Donate directly to the Democrats who have a track record of representing YOUR
Working Class issues.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their pretty campaign speeches, promises, or excuses.

as much as possibly can with our own ideology and join and work work work on the local level to elect Democratic candidates from dog catcher to the state house.

Too many people focus on the BIG elections. It is the little elections that enable a movement.

And HOW!!! Buckminster Fuller, I think, is the one who said "Think globally, act locally." It starts at the itty bitty local neighborhood grass roots. The little jobs and low-level elections - where it's not so much about today but about building for tomorrow. It IS the little elections that enable a movement! Good one, Luminous Animal! You can't exclude the local stuff in your focus on the big elections. Because big elections are made of local elections. That's how a lot of things start. Including movements that are giving us a LOT of grief these days: the teabaggers, the religious extremists, and more.

a progressive agenda. For decades the community was dominated by the interests of Chevron…

This year? No more.

http://richmondprogressivealliance.net

Democratic parties and the national party. We must support progressive national candidates directly or via outside organizations.

In my former incarnation on DU I never put anyone on ignore, but these days you don't have much choice..

Clintons are a joke as are all the other corporate war mongering apologists.

I'd rather strive to be a pony that's pure than a Mutt with sneers

eom

popularity, its obvious the centrists and conservative Democrats in charge have proven to be an EPIC failure. They all should hide their heads in shame at their abysmal results, and let progressives take over.

there Obviously needs to be a change in course. What a fucking mess in the wake though.

with a pin-the-tail on the donkey state by few state strategy.

Democrats, blue dogs, centrists, neo-liberals. These are Republicans deliberately trying to crush the Democratic Party to keep it from interfering with the interests of the rich.

of their LIVES!! We need a Progressive Party to challenge the status quo.

am NOT a DLC/3rd Way/big bank Democrat.

From maybe to a certain veto.

The Party has finally seen the light. Perhaps?

The pipeline is unlikely to be completed anytime in the near future because the profits aren't there. So vetoing the Keystone XL is pretty much a gimme.

Or The President is smart enough to know that oil <70$\barrell means tar sands not worth doing, let alone SHIPPING that oil across half a continent.
either way, I hope indeed that he actually does vetos that GOP trash.
=)

from the right.

I don't give a fuck whether a D or an R follows their name.

for our country.

......people are staying home, and they're staying home because Democratic candidates aren't saying anything to excite them. People are seeing their already-tenuous hold on 'the American Dream' slipping away, and Democrats aren't really offering them any alternatives.

Ms. Warren excites potential voters, even though she isn't running for President, because she does offer alternatives.

Last edited Sat Jan 10, 2015, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

slight typo in para 5, 'whinny' should probably be 'whiny'.

And this is why the Third Way is on such a rampage against 'populism' and Elizabeth Warren, their long run protecting the interests of Wall St from within the Dem Party is finally showing signs of coming to an end. But they WILL fight hard so no one should let their guard down. They are attacking Warren everywhere and every way they can. She will need all the support she can get.

look out into the populace and see what is really going on and re-brand the image. Being almost like republicans is not going to work, and 2016 will be a failure for democrats unless the paradigm is changed.

There is only one reason to support the Democratic Party—because the Democratic Party stands for traditional Democratic Party principles.

Republican—lite won't get it. Neither will Republican—like.

There are a number of DUers whose sole purpose is to aid in the destruction of the Democratic Party. That's why they are here. They are employees of "someone". They're sowing derision on every thread. Recognize them for what they are.

While I would love to take control of our Party,
just having a liberal voice and representation in the current Democratic Party
would be wonderful.

But I don't think I've ever seen a large move to the left.
The right sucks'em up continuously but the left doesn't ever seem to have much sucking power.
The right really sucks.

We might get to see and experience a change to the progressive agenda! Now that's change we can believe in!!!

I am a Warren Democrat.

a gazillion times please.

K/R

It's a nice thought. However, every dollar in the markets is a dollar against us. Nobody with money in Wall St genuinely wants progressive and liberal policies & politicians to prevail. That money will all but guarantee things remain the same and for them, that is all that matters.