I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.

More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.

The rights and the welfare of millions of Americans are involved in the pledges made in the Democratic platform of 1948 and in the program of this administration. And those rights and interests must not be betrayed.

Take the problem of offshore oil, for example. The minerals that lie under the sea off the coasts of this country belong to the Federal Government--that is, to all the people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those rights may be worth as much as somewhere between $40 billion and $100 billion.

If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States, where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves.

Talk about corruption. Talk about stealing from the people. That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a colossal scale. It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.

The ADA grew out of a predecessor group, the Union for Democratic Action (UDA). The UDA was formed by former members of the Socialist Party of America and Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies as well as labor union leaders, liberal politicians, theologians, and others who were opposed to the pacifism adopted by most left-wing political organizations in the late 1930s and early 1940s.[1][2] It supported a strongly interventionist, internationalist foreign policy and a pro-union, liberal domestic policy. It was strongly anti-communist as well.[2][3] It undertook a major effort to support left-wing Democratic members of Congress in 1946, but this effort was an overwhelming failure.[3][4][5]

James Isaac Loeb (later an ambassador and diplomat in the John F. Kennedy administration), the UDA's executive director, advocated disbanding the UDA and forming a new, more broadly-based, mass-membership organization.[6][7] The ADA was formed on January 4, 1947, and the UDA shuttered.[4][7][8]

Founding members included:

Reinhold Niebuhr
Hubert Humphrey
John Kenneth Galbraith
Joseph P. Lash
Walter Reuther
Eleanor Roosevelt
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
Wilson W. Wyatt

Last edited Sat Feb 7, 2015, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

when it come to economics, the economy and even the environment. In the big picture social issues do not really matter to the 1% unless it causes economic instability or civil unrest they have to deal with. They can do what the f they want with their lives.

Social issues with the parties is nothing more then a circus sideshow to those who do not understand the big picture.

Todays Tehadist Party aka GOP, is becoming a theocratic fascist party.

Today America lacks a Liberal/Progressive Party at the national level because the current Democratic Leadership is not liberal or progressive and go out of their way to shut down the liberals and progressives in the party.

The democratic Party has a choice people or corporations and right now leadership is siding with corporations and when Democrats act just like republicans they lose, as they should.

16 will be the tipping point for the Democratic Party and it will define the party for the future, will it be a corporate future or the peoples future.

If the party picks Hillary they will have sealed its fate as the new corporate party which will result in many people leaving the party.

Who knew?

Or that today's Democratic Party joins the GOP of the 70s and 80s in supporting constitutional amendments to ban abortion, prevent "race-based" assignment of students to schools, and allow prayer in schools.

Or that todays Democratic Party and the 70s and 80s GOP are aligned in their support for registration of firearms and in their opposition to higher taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers.

Who knew?

it was the right thing to do? In NY we would not have passed Gay Marriage had it not been for a few Republicans, one of whom stated that while he knew he was going against his party, he could not in his conscience, deny some Americans the same rights all Americans are entitled to.

And the 'country' is not swinging to the Right, as polls show on the Issues, politicians including Dems funded by Wall St, are dragging it to the right.

The claim that today's Democratic Party is about the same as the 70s and 80s GOP is a combination of hyperbole and ignorance. Demonstrably so.
As for the fact that NY wouldn't have passed same sex marriage had it not been for a few repubs, the vote actually highlights the differences between the parties, not their similarities. 29 of 30 Democrats voted for the bill; 28 of 32 repubs voted against. If the claim that today's Democrats are about the same as 70s and 80s repubs had merit, it would mean that the 70s and 80s repubs would have voted overwhelmingly for same sex marriage. You can't possibly think that. No one can.

The other examples I gave are further evidence that today's Democratic Party is far different from the GOP of the 70s and 80s in numerous, significant ways.

In taking over state legislatures because Democrats don't show up for mid terms. I don't think America is moving to the right. It's more like we're letting them take over. When our politicians run from our party platform , like they did in the last mid term it just makes them look weak.

Democrats in state races, theoretically because they "can't win." Well, that's BS. The Pubs fund the craziest Pub nut running for dogcatcher and school board, and that's why they have been winning. We had a credible guy running against Eric Cantor, and he didn't get a dime, or a speech, from the national Dems. Shameful.

Are thrilled that the Hoi Polloi remains divided and divisive, with our attention focused on "that extremist other party," instead of the real problem: the radical income inequities inflicted upon us by the .01%.

where the country moves to the far-right/far-left and then swings back?

Why are democrats choosing not to vote, even for the DINO's?

that train has already sailed.

We live in a proto-theocratic, right wing oligarchy and have been for quite some time.

First is that they've lost the middle aged white male vote. Joe Sixpack, a 50 yo blue collar guy does not vote for Democrats anymore. Before the tea party, he might have split his ticket and voted for Blue Dogs. Now he's a lost cause.

Unfortunately Joe Sixpack votes all the time. The likely Democratic voters (minorities, young people) don't have great voting habits.

Democrats need to find a way to win back Joe Sixpack. The GOP, talk radio, and Faux News have brainwashed him.