"We are witnessing the re-definition of what it means to be a 'Democrat.'"

That was said by a DUer, Octafish, in another thread. He is exactly right. We are witnessing it right now. We are being required to accept things that Democrats have never traditionally supported.

It is catching many of us off-guard and throwing us off balance more and more.

We all know that George Bush did not tell us the truth about Iraq. The media was on board with his goal of invasion of a sovereign country. We talked a lot here then about the seeming militant "drumbeat". The day that the news stopped everything but the coverage of our bombing of Iraq...the shock and awe...was a day etched into our minds.

Yet he and his cronies will never be held accountable for the destruction and lives lost by an invasion based on lies. Last year Katha Pollitt of The Nation wrote about how Bush and his cronies are actually leading good lives and prospering.

Those of the "torture creative class" and how they got rewarded.



She then presents the ways that folks like John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz have been rewarded with profitable associations.

There is more.

We are having to watch women's rights be marginalized as the administration and many congressional Democrats act to pacify the religious right. There was even an executive order regarding abortion coverage.

Even more.

We are having to watch as people whom we respected as outspoken Democrats are pushed out because the right wing targeted them.

Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod..out quickly because they were targeted by the right wing.

Yet someone as obnoxious as Alan Simpson is being made to feel safe in his job on the fiscal commission, though he is always saying ugly things about Social Security and seniors. That's because it is our side that disapproves. He will stay in spite of his insults.

And also we have to sit and watch as good teachers are humiliated by having their names printed based only on test scores of students. We need to watch as some of them are forced into an assembly during which their names are called out as they are fired. A whole school, and being a good teacher doesn't count.

We have to sit back and watch the WH Chief of Staff actually brag that they are turning schools over to the free markets.



All the while to add to the outrage, the party leaders frequently refer to us as "the left", "leftists", "liberals" in a very disparaging way.

The right wing extremists are not called out like we on the "left" are. We are nothing like them. Their views are against the poor and the needy, we stand up for them. Their rhetoric has a mean streak toward those not like them. Our side usually exhibits tolerance and inclusion.

As Octafish said..we are in the middle of seeing our party redefine what it means to be a Democrat.

And if we question we are scorned and treated badly by the party leaders.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

decades and decades. If I switch to Independent, then all the Republicans here come knocking at your door thinking you could be made one of them and that is horrible. I need to join the FDR party.

Much like you, the Democratic party has apparently left me. I thought I was kind of a progressive moderate, but then apparently we've been told to just go away, but don't forget to vote Democratic. What a F'en mess. It is so damn frustrating. I have friends that donated thousands to the Democratic party and they are not happy either with the Democrats. So now I think WTF.

I pretty much reached my tipping point in 2006, when I was obligated, as a DEC member to support asshole Jim Davis for Governor of Florida. I'd spoken with him many times when he was a Congressman. He supported the Patriot Act. He was one of 27 "New Democrats" who wrote a letter to Dennis Hastert, begging him to hurry up and bring that gawd-awful Bankruptcy "Reform" bill to the floor, so that they could vote for it. I absolutely loathed this man, and was forced to support him.

Just a few months later, when my party voted to continue funding the Iraq War in 2007, I resigned the DEC in protest. When they renewed FISA, telecom immunity, and renewed illegal wiretapping, I said "fuck it", and switched to independent.

I'll never vote for a repuke, but I'll also never vote for a DLCer, a Blue Dog, or a "New Democrat" either. Read 'em and weep Kendrick Meek.

You now have to EARN my vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.

1/2 dozen real Democrats in Congress..The rest are corporate rentals..just as the Republicans..If Democrats are pissed now just wait until the Bush tax cuts are extended with Obama's blessings..They are trying to figure out what kind of double talk they can use to get away with this.. but it will happen.
The Democratic party(as we knew it) does not exist any more ..I believe we could have a real progressive party and we would be surprised how quickly we could organize and become a legitimate political force.

think a lot of people would sign on if done right. I actually think some of the frustrated teabaggers really want a progressive party, but they are so severely misguided by being fed so much RW propaganda.

Three parties would mix things up some so you might not get this constant bantering back and forth like we have now. I would like to see the "FDR Party."

Obama had a chance to carve out a whole new and better direction for the US, but the majorities were squandered. IMO, we basically have just the same in many ways... There have been a lot of missed opportunities IMO.

I have stopped all donations to the democratic party. I figure they are so awash in corporate money my 2 cents is needed more by me.

I feel so used.

a generation or so..After the Bush disaster Obama and the Democrats had that chance. That ended when Emanuel was appointed chief of staff and Obama appointed other Republicans and Wall St. look alikes to key positions..Then Democrats in Congress thought the only way to get reelected was to jump on board the corporate train and ride along with the Republicans..Surprise !! Surprise !!

(hopefully, there are more)

most of my family are democratic and truly admire FDR. some were around during the great depression. But, it started with Clinton for me-I read everything I could find about the Iran-contra fiasco and the PROMIS software theft and BCCI involvement. I followed Danny Casolero's articles in the paper and when Clinton was voted in, I thought "alright we are going to have a full blown investigation and get these bastards, that included "I was not in the loop"-poppy bush. Also, before the election, the NAFTA-GATT was being discussed-I didn't want it to pass-there was already discussions of labor exploitation and environmental concerns. Well, we needed to look forward, you see and NAFTA got passed without Poppy (I'm sure they had his blessing). What Casolero said in one of his articles, is this about circumventing the will of the people, this is about going against congress and about going against the rule of law. And, some of these, I believe, criminals reared their ugly heads in Little Boot's administration.

Now it's the same scam. We must look forward, after so much damage has been done, especially to the american people. We need another FDR in the worst way today.

I also won't change to independent, I don't want any repug phone calls or door solicitations.

we need another FDR in the worst way. I keep thinking just how much more are the people going to take before they pay attention to what is really going on.

that If i change my registration to I and the pukes start coming to my door I would hang a sign like you see around....has a pic of a pistol barrel pointing straight at you and underneath ..No Trespassing...Forget the dogs, guarded by smith and wesson. I don't take kindly to door to door freepers.
I already have no soliciting signs out..the religious idiots used to come knocking and I would point to the sign..We are up a private road too with no trespass signs prominent at the last place you can turn around.
We have one neighbor and have been discussing goin in together on a powered gate for down at that same spot.

In my 26 years of voting, I have NEVER voted for a rethuglican--I'd cut my dick off with a plastic spork before I did. However, I no longer call myself a democrat.

I am a leftist. A liberal. An independent.

for the upcoming Senate race, more and more I'm looking at Crist as a VERY possible vote from me!

I'm FED UP and SICK by the way we've been treated by our very own Democrats AND especially what I'm seeing from THIS WH!!

Count me in with the Leftist, Liberal and Independent class now!! If that means the NOW Democrats no longer want me... then it's CRICKETS for them AND me!!

A VERY, VERY, sad state of affairs! It just blows me away, but I WON'T ROLL OVER!!!

I believe in what I believe the Democrats always HAVE believed... A Party FOR THE PEOPLE!! But that's IS NOT what I'm seeing nor do I like being called names by my CHOSEN Party for all my life!!

I won't take the blame thought, IT'S ON THEM!!

:nuke: :puke: :grr:

have you had your drug test yet? Mine is tomorrow :hi:

The Party has abandoned us, not the other way around!

:toast:

I wish I could give the a +1000, but that is possible.

:toast:

One of the bummers of reading this site these days is having to try to guess what thing was said by which deleted person.

A stalwart finally fed up, saying something guaranteeing a final exit? :shrug:

a heartfelt email they can get re-instated. Hell, it works for people who physically threaten other members. :sarcasm:

Get no love or even respect from the Dems. WTF?

I think the silent moderate republicans have moved into the democratic party.

Far leftists called this one way back during the campaign. As they watched the dynamics, and listened to Obama, they became more convinced that many of the wealthy internationalists actually abandoned the Republican party and switched to the Dems. A view of Obama's top fund-raisers confirms it. The democratic party is becoming the party of sophisticated voters who have assets to protect (owners). People of all income levels have been convinced that they should focus on cultural issues - gay marriage, prayer in school, abortion - and divide up based on them. This keeps folks from focusing on economics. When people do focus on economics they quickly come to the conclusion that there is no party for them (and we are seeing more and more posters at DU coming to that realization daily).

I was once on the "well reasoned" side. Those who had to have valid reasons to go to war, those who believe social security, medicare are great programs, those who believed that decent jobs were a prerequisite for healthy families, healthy communities, healthy economy, those who believed that corporations usually look for profit (and many times at the expense of others) therefore regulations should be in place and enforced for the health and well-being of citizens and country. Why is that a far leftist stance? I consider it a reasonable stance for the welfare and safety of our country and it's people.

But yes I completely understand your point that your party has moved from under you.

The left in the USA was hunted down to almost extinction for the past 4 decades, never mind "far left."

I agree completely with your statement that the left in the USA was hunted down to almost extinction. But on this website Dennis Kucinich is "far left" so I work with what I have.

If anything, he is center-left.

I have lived overseas, I don't think most Americans truly understand what a real leftist political ethos is, never mind far left.

PS. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just providing a complementary POV. Cheers.

I guess it really depends on where each of us are on this political spectrum. If people like Kucinich are considered far-left, than this political party is the new center right.

sorry it took so long to get there but I agree with you both. That is essentially what this party has become - it is the new establishment party, or is desperately trying to be. The wall street bailouts, continued plundering via war in the middle east, rush to privatization on issues from defense to education ... it is all extremely right-wing.

we don't have a labor party here and it shows ...

M$M, is it.

Spot on!

If he is still with the White House come January, then the Obama agenda will end before it got started.
There is no way someone as narrow-minded as Emanuel can speak for an entire country of liberals and think somehow handing out crying towels is going to keep them in office.

Actions speak louder than words.

Can I have a witness?

:banghead:

Tell it like it is!

:grr:

Something so major as changing the definition of what it means to be a Democrat should have been up for discussion and open to debate.

Instead, the switch was done in the dark of night by persons unknown by name, but obvious by type.

in our own party, moderates who think that the Democratic party should be Republican Lite corporate party, and they are willing to demonize the left endlessly to make it that way.

They attack us as much as they attack republicans. :(

To hear them talk you would think that only moderates only ever accomplish anything, but they ignore the fact that "moderate" is by definition the mid point between two other points, and their own party has to define one of those two points.

If they attack the left and refuse to allow their own party to provide that one point on the left-most end of the spectrum then the mid-point that they cherish so much COLLAPSES. By attacking the left, moderate democrats are inherently conceding the center to the forces on the right.

They are surrendering the middle to the republican radicals who are willing to constantly push things farther to the right-ward extreme, because democratic moderates have themselves attacked and destroyed all of our efforts within the party that counter-balance the right and anchored all of us on the left.

Without anchors on the left, the center cannot hold.

The "compromise" position between left and right is the center. But if it's between the center and the far right, it's the right wing position.

If you're a "moderate" and want centrist policies, you'd better support a STRONG left or you won't get those centrist policies.

Try to find any policy of Reagan's that doesn't jive with those of the "New Democrats". Hell, he may have even been more liberal on several issues! The elite have pushed the repugs over the cliff of insanity so they could move the Democratic Party to the hard Right. Now there's no "Left" left in America-which is exactly what they planned.


(And for those Reagan Repugs cheering this hopeless change: Remember, Reagan was the one who ultimately got us into the mess we find ourselves in today!)

You must have two or more "poles" for anything to be polarized. We have 1 pole: the Right. They may be broken down into the neo-con Right, the far-Right, the crap-in-your-pants-and-go-to-heaven Right, but it is one pole.

There IS NO LEFT LEFT. You can point to some individuals, some organizations, some minor media. But in politics you only have a presence by the measure of how effective you are in the political sphere. The left has NO EFFECTIVE PRESENCE to measure.

Since the mid-70s, I have seen the Democratic Party rid itself of anyone to the left of LBJ. To date, I have seen NOTHING which would suggest that the DNC, the Obama Administration, etc., have over-stepped their contempt of anyone group or individual who espouses the most meat & potato liberal agenda, and wish to make amends by offering a consolation speech for or recognizing the efforts of notable liberal groups. No effort whatsoever.

IMO, the DNC and what remains of MSM are quite afraid of the far-right, and believe that only some mythical "middle ground" (which by definition does not exist) will save them from an authoritarian right-wing regime funded and controlled by corporate power. They have no use for the Left, and frankly want it to disappear, hence the willing acceptance by Democrats of GOP black-balling of "liberals;" it merely speeds the process up some.

BTW, the "swinging pendulum" of politics is another myth, right up there with "polarization."

... I am tired of hearing these "moderates" who turn utterly nasty and vicious the minute you don't toe in their line. Nothing "moderate" about some of their attitudes.

Do you mean utterly nasty like calling you a Republican? And being so vicious that they threaten to not vote for Democrats?

Of how this nation collapsed.

((Couldn't say we said nothing))

It was only a matter of time before the corporatists would make their move on the Democratic Party. Divide and conquer, old as the hills. ((of course this lot thinks they thought it up))

Nader's been reporting that for decades!!

If they dont, the party will die.

That is not change. I think you know that.

I am sure you know that.

It isn't being absorbed, just offering an alternative to the Right that isn't really Left either. It's more or less right down the middle, which isn't a position at all. It's more of a "Which way is the wind blowing today?" approach. It's bland, it's milquetoast, and it doesn't inspire anyone.

One exception. The party will ALWAYS defend big business because that is where the money is.

party direction blows with the wind, but always center or right of center IMO. It's a very appeasing administration weighted to the right. I think it's a mistake. It's also a major mistake to throw part of the party off the bridge. The aim should be one united party. And RW corporate American is not moving democratic no matter how hard they try to appease the right.

I have never been so disappointed in my party leadership.

they are republicans--simple as that. NAFTA-GATT, welfare deform bill, telecommunications bill, health insurance deform bill-all repuke bills or DLC bills.

And if the party changes to look like the repug party, does that mean they will morph into one big old party? Well, you sure won't have to worrying about them changing or dying, do you? Or if they morph into the "new" repug party, does that mean the "old" repug party becomes the new "theocratic, loonie tunes fascist party?

(read corporations). The country on ISSUES is left of the Dems and WAY left of the Republicans.

"The country on ISSUES is left of the Dems and WAY left of the Republicans."

It's a fact that has been obfuscated by the corporate propaganda, but it's very true.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Gee, I wonder where all the teabaggers were during the passing of the Patriot Act or suspending habeas corpus and posse comitatus? Where were they when Little Boots and his ilk were trampling on the Constitution and Bill of Rights--because, you see, they were protecting you like "big bully daddy" and everyone was just so full of fear. Now, the corporations, they just love them some libertarians-as a matter of fact, some fund the teabagger movement. Well, Little Boots said that his friends could police themselves, because they're such honest, noble men of honor--nope they wouldn't harm anyone to make a buck. And the libertarians believe that when corporations sell you poisoned food or kill an entire town with tainted water, that the people will make them go out of business. Of course, by that time your family is dead--but wait, they can resurrect as a new company like Blackwater to XE.

Even Thomas Paine, after seeing his elderly parents suffer, believed in taking care of the elderly--to not allow them to suffer and starve. Of course, we pay into the program, we deserve to receive a stipend. And, I'd rather see my money go to helping, especially those who have lost their decent jobs, to those who are physically and mentally ill, than to a war profiteer! But, hey we need to all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps just like they did in the great depression where the elderly starved, where parents could not afford their children (orphans on the streets) and where the homeless (who once had decent jobs) slept on the streets. Do they, as americans, deserve to die?

I'd say the problem started when the media and repugs convinced some people that government is the problem. Now we are talking about deregulating pro-corporate repugs, so why would they want to convince the people that the government is their enemy? You see, we are the government. It's "we the people", not "we the corporations." And, I believe they needed to convince the people so they could get rid of anything good about the people's government-education, labor laws, helping the unfortunate, corporate regulation,etc. If you really believed in limited government, you'd have been all over Little Boot's for passing the Patriot Act and limiting your freedoms (it's not all about guns). I know a couple of places where those who believe in "limited" government would feel at home-Somalia and Haiti, and there's others. Of course, those countries that seem to be weathering the economic storm actually have tight governmental regulations, like Finland, Canada.

Amazing how people are actually proving my point about the way liberals are treated.

the buying of government includes the political parties --

How could you be so naive as to not understdand this?

Sold down the river maybe?

becoming the Reagan Republican Party. And this party will die because of it. Evolving means progressing, not regressing. This party has become regressive and I hear it everywhere I go from people who have been Democrats all their lives.

What really needs to change now, is the base of the party holding on to any hope that the Party they once felt was their party, has been bought by Corporate American.

I hope a new Democratic Party will emerge from the rubble that this party has now become, so that we can start moving forward and start voting FOR candidates, not against Republicans.

I believe that is beginning to happen and it may be painful at first, but it has happened before.

what has happened to the Democratic Party? What happened to the Republican Party under bush/cheney?
A frequent commenter on another site who lived in Yugoslavia under Tito and then the break up ...stated that the leaders of the US and Great Britain do not have as much autonomy as Tito did under communism.

If policy remains the same under the Republicans and Democrats does that not suggest that there is no difference and possibly WE are an occupied country? TARP comes to mind.Tax payers don't have the right to question what the banks did with tax dollars. Our election system is a joke. Think Alvin Greene in SC. That smacks of g bush and is wacky sense of humor. Now a bank in Afghanistan is in trouble..Petreus is saying it will affect security.

Meanwhile Social Security is being attacked as an entitlement here in the US.We have to beg for laws to be passed which benefit US. WE are thrown a bone or two. ...but they always always benefit corporations.

of adopting right wing policy the party can fucking die as far as I'm concerned.

Party means more than a big D on a sweat shirt, to me anyway. I do not see this as sort of like college football. The Democratic Party has always had key principles. If they stray from these key principles they are no longer the Democratic Party. Guess what, I don't vote for Republicans in Democrat clothing.

for the most part, to the right of Richard Nixon politically. Call it absorbtion or whatever you want, but it's true.
If they can't have the repubs in power, they will have compliant Dems in power. Look at what this trend has done to working people. Having to work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. Little or no access to healthcare. The rich getting richer with each passing day. This is what the democratic party has adapted to and with which many are complicit. There has to be a better way.

Blacklisting anybody who could be labeled a communist...

by many people. The anti-red hysteria began decades before McCarthy. The wealthy people who push for this sort of hysteria decided to take a different tac: 1. buy up and use the media to push their line 2. use their vast wealth to corrupt the political system. 3. stack the economic deck to work soley for their profit.

Redefining what it means to be a Democrat? How does one go about that?

I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat. -- Will Rogers (1879-1935)

and ran on the same crap he always has, would you vote for him?

Is there nothing that someone who calls him or herself a democrat can do that will elicit your disdain and disapproval. If palin became a Democrat, would you vote for her.

These are not silly questions. This is the crux of the OP. Just what does it mean to be a Democrat? Is it just a jersey on a team player? Does the term Democrat mean anything other than "our team"?

This thread takes me back to the primary season where I read a lot of "say/do anything to win" type posts. It was sad to see that happen. Sadder still and more incredible is reading that "progressives deserve extinction."

(vote for Newt, now a Democrat) the first words posted by several of the pseudo progressives would be "Oh, so you want President Palin" and/or "So, you want the Republicans to pick the next Supreme Court justice(s)", two arguments that immediately let one know that they are engaged in debate with a Reagan Democrat.

Policy matters. Politicians rarely do.

And good questions. What exactly does it mean to be a Democrat?

because they said it was too liberal. It seems that many here wished that phil and newt had stayed, that the party had become more conservative earlier so they wouldn't lose these vote getters.

I wish that the people who say they are Democrats but hate liberalism and progressives would just man up to themselves and say they want to follow newt and phil. They certainly don't like the Democratic party that gave us Truman, and Kennedy. Many here advocate positions to the right of richard nixon. But then so does the white house.

switching parties, and the way the party is today, he might feel quite comfortable again as a Democrat.

To return to the party that used to represent the people, it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that the party as it is today, does not. And then decide how to get it back on track. For too long the DLC wing of the party has had way too much influence.

Either the base fights for real progressive candidates to replace DLCers and Blue Dogs or I think one day in the not too distant future, since the party has moved so far from its platform, a new party will emerge. It is almost inevitable. One more cycle of Dems in the majority, ignoring those who elected them will probably begin its demise.

That is what galls me when we are told we have no choice. That we must vote for DLC or the scary, scary republicans will win. If I don't have a choice, then I might as well not chose.

Re "If newt gingrich registered as a Democrat and ran on the same crap he always has, would you vote for him?"

The answer--from me and I imagine most on this thread--is NO!!! Unfortunately, there are a lot of Democrats who WOULD. I guess it's kind of a conditioned reflex.

It's the high school football rivalry mentality.

Some people don't care WHAT the person stands for so long as they have the right initial after their name so long as they're not too progressive then that person needs drug testing.

The party needs to figure out who its going to represent or it'll find itself with less and less people willing to go out for them.

:applause:

About half the people here on DU WOULD vote for any republican who put on a Democrat Jersey, and they would endlessly insult and castigate any of us who insisted that just putting on the Jersey doesn't make someone a real democrat.

"Go Team!" :eyes:

Why would liberals/progressives want to go backwards --

this is just more fear-based posting!

...it would appear that the "centrists" and "moderates" actually need "the left" to get into office.

And given that situation, "deserv(ing) their future extinction" works both ways.

So where is the "pragmatism" in courting a balk from "the left" when it's gaining nothing from the "center" and right?

and to stay in office once they get there. We're the engaged and activist base of the party, after all. But somehow, the DLC "centrists" thought they could keep it a big secret from us that they need us, by trotting out the same old threats every two years.

It doesn't seem to be working as well this year as it did in the past--must be frustrating as all hell for them.

deserve whatever half arsed trifles your monied masters deign to give you. You'll never get what you want, just what your masters have to give you for show, to pretend they represent you, or even recognize you exist.

Good luck w that.

:thumbsup:

You seem to specialize in those.

to admit that Obama is not progressive.

Geez, now you guys are moving into the "final solution" phase.

With "friends" like you... you guys sure loved the "big tent" when you needed to get a foot in a less tarnished brand than you previous team of choice. Now all these "new" Dems act as if they own the place.

come down off your stool.

has been told why. If the party chooses to ignore my wishes then they deserve to lose my vote. Any party that supports my progressive ideals will have my support.

If this leads to the extinction of progressives, then, as a progressive, I say so be it.

I will no longer be held hostage by the threat of "but the Republicans might win."

Excellent post, Madflo.

Rec.

"I will no longer be held hostage by the threat of "but the Republicans might win."

There are consequences to our decisions, but as long as you feel comfortable in your beliefs....it is ok with me.
Just don't come pissing and moaning about the horrible things the Republicans are doing. Think about that before you make your decision.

You know that's not what I was saying.

of what we want EVERY time on EVERY issue..they are not democrats they are corporate whores. I m kind of sick of voting for the lesser of evils too.
I did not vote for raygun I have never voted for a puke and never will, now our supposed party is the same shit different day look how hcr turned out most all of it was a bad puke idea,,,making familys buy private insurance that is bullshit but that is about the only thing i agree with the baggers on.
I have voted D in every election since Carter.

That argument leads to apathy, and I feel we've come to that.

We are told well these guys are better than the rightwing nutcases. This may be true, but I never used to feel like that when voting. I felt there was a set of core Democratic values that were not compromised. I don't feel that any more.

I feel we now are told we must appeal to "independents" and must compromise over and over again (the health care bill comes to mind), women's reproductiom rights, non-accountability for torture, invasion of personal rights, moving away from strict regulatory requirements, and many others. I've seen a party replace its core values by becoming the party of compromise as its new core value.

While compromise is often laudable, we've really lost something that made me want to become a Democrat back in the 60's.

There are strong Progessive voices still out there, but the television media is really trying to marginalize those voices. And not only FOX, but CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS. These networks have seriously tilted towards the right in my opinion.

For example if the John Birch society or Joe Pyne in the 60's had created a rally at the Lincoln Memorial I seriously doubt it would have captured the press that the Beck one did.

As Dylan said, "the times they are a changing". I just think they're changing in a significant move towards the right and I don't like it.

Little did I think that Obama's pledge of "Yes, we can." would create such a sense of idealism and hope in Americans that when he compromised many of those "ideals" away that a lot of us had, it would make the fall and sense of dissapointment that much more depressing.

This was John Kerry's comment regarding the climate bill:

"We believe we have compromised significantly, and we're prepared to compromise further."

It could just as easily have been stated regarding the health insurance bill & the bankers bill.

It is the battle cry of our party.

the dem. party does need to grow some balls.

for them or have the scary Republicans take power. Meanwhile, they're putting into place policies that Republicans want, so what's the difference?

and at some point I may throw my hands up in utter disgust too. I try to look at what is going on from an optimistic view point. take health care....I'm not overly happy with it, but I look at it as the beginning of something we are in dire need of, not the end result, which would suck.
I just can not in all good conscience abandon the democratic party because I'm not happy. I will continue to fight for what I believe within the party. There is no alternative.

There are consequences, indeed.

... when your main electoral value proposition amounts to basically blackmail/extortion, you should take a few minutes to reflect where you guys went wrong.

I do understand that for many democrats it certainly does amount to blackmail/extortion. Throwing ones strong, heartfelt beliefs, of what the democrat party should represent, out the window for "the lesser of two evils" must be a gut-wrenching proposition.

I guess I would say Howard Dean is a good example of someone I admire, and he is a good example of one who will not quit fighting for what he believes the democratic party represents. He has been treated unfairly, to say the least, but continues to speak out and fight within the party.

I do understand your frustration.

though, it's consequence are only just now being felt, and thus harder to hide behind the rhetoric designed to keep us pliant.

The awful truth.

what would paul simon,paul wellstone,hubert humphrey ,lbj, fdr,and other great liberal democrats think of what our party has become....

And I would really like to see FDR kicking the ass of every politician would even think of sacrificing Social Security on the altar of "fiscal responsibility", especially when so much money is being pissed away on wars and bankster bailouts.

that party today. I think Eisenhower would be too liberal for what we have today.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Corporate America gives it money to the Democrats, then the Republicans then the Democrats again.

Public finance for elections would solve this problem. All corporate money out.

from one party to the next--the media and certain politicians make sure they keep the plebes divided. Don't want no plebes thinking about a decent job, or labor rights or education or civil rights--yep, keep them ignorant, scared and divided. The spooky big government is out to get you--booga, booga. All we have to do is screw up, like Katrina to convince the plebes that small government is better, no bothersome education, libraries, funds to the needy (of course, you may one day be one) or anything that aids the people. Because government is bad--so does that mean "we the people are bad", because what I've stated before, we are the government-and somehow, they've convinced us that it was some foreign entity that is not to be trusted. Only the all powerful corporations can save you--overpriced, shitty service and no more of that pesky representation. Yes sirree, it's government is bad and for profit sociopathic corporations are good!

That is exactly what is happening.

Hell, let alone their ilk right here.

keep them in defense mode all the time. I just don't get it. Is it a fear of using their tactics against them and seemingly being hypocritical? If that tactic works on us then it will work against them too. Fuck reaching across the aisle ...they would never do that with us. We have a majority and it is still being wasted on crap for the wealthy and the MIC. What about John Smith here at the common everyday low level of living week to week? Call me an extreme lefty for actually caring about myself and others in my un wealthy position in life ...and in fear of losing my job every day. I want these congress people to have to live with the same fear for a change.

:think:

They really do appear to be on the same side at the end of the day.

unrec and hide :eyes:

I think the Grand Experiment is over. I really do.

We are part of a battle that has gone on for centuries, and will continue for many more!

K&R

was "kept safe" by trying to keep him in prison... I'm sure some wingnuts will try to explain "socialist" Obama's administration's actions that way...

I'm sure we'll hear some rationalization like that to excuse us letting Stevens off the hook but still trying to not support Siegelman's appeal.

it could happen again. as teh republican party has moved itself deep into the right-wing fringe, the democratic party has seized the center (and then some).

a classic economics game theory thought exercise is to imagine a beach (or any essentially straight line) which has enough demand for exactly two food purveyors, and people will always go to whichever is closer. where should they position themselves? well, if either one fails to occupy the center, the other one can seize the larger of the two remaining areas. i.e., they'll always be adjacent to each other, one servicing the left, the other serving the right. if there's area in between them, they both have an incentive to move closer, and if either is not in the center, the other can move to be adjacent on the long side, thereby leaving the competitor with less than half the beach.

the only stable arrangement is for them to be side by side in the exact middle.

it's similar with one-dimensional politics. think of all politics as left-right is a tad simplistic, or, it OUGHT to be a tad simplistic, but reality is rapidly becoming that simplistic. with the republicans moving so far from center, the democrats obviously decided to seize the long end of the beach by moving close to the republicans, thereby trying to serve the entire left end of the spectrum, the middle, and even some of the right. the republicans are left with only the loony fringe.


however, eventually, the left will become disaffected and look for alternatives. the loony right will become disenchanted with the reality of being a minority party. one possibility is that the left will start a third party and the republican party will fade away out, to be replaced with the green party or whatever on the left -- the democrats will then by the party of the right.

alternatively, the disaffected left might take over the machinery of the right if their numbers are large enough.

finally, the left and the loony right might somehow (never say never!) work out a strange compromise in order to unite. don't laugh, the racists were democrats once. in that scenario, the republican party would then be politically left but racist; the democrats would not be racists but would be politically conservative.


the bottom line is that the democrats shouldn't stray too far from the left, or else they might find themselves in la-la land.

Why exactly? There was nothing in Obama the candidate that said he was going to be progressive or make any radical changes in the way we live, work and play. In fact, Candidate Obama's record said pretty much nothing. Yet we all made these radical assumptions and I still haven't figured out why. We have NEVER trusted politicians to do what they say they're gonna do. Why, in 2008, did Americans decide that EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN HAS LIED, but THIS GUY is telling the truth? :shrug:

:thumbsup:

Anyone who questioned that image was branded a racist Hillary supporter and told to go vote Republican.

That's why I don't call myself "progressive" - it's a synonym for "chump." I am a socialist, thankyouverymuch.

To paraphrase Tom Wolfe (no flaming liberal, to be sure), he voted for Reagan because the Democrats/liberals bared its throat too often.

Once a party like the Democratic Party makes a reputation of giving in, of weeding outs its people in accordance with GOP demands, of insulting what remains of its "base," then you start trailing the stink of weakness, the VERY THING the GOP has been saying about Democrats for the last 30 years on a 24-7-365 basis. And the American people will weary of ANY party with that culture.

:mad:

:kick:

Keep telling it

k&r

When business class finally realized that the repugs have now become too toxic to use to hold on to future power in a increasively multi-racial/gender/sexual america due to past racist (and homophobic) baggage decided to transform the dems (who mostly do not have that baggage) into their new future power base. And started on a plan to do just that staring with Clinton and continuing (with a boost) with Obama.

However I think they didn't realize (or didn't count on) that party's liberal/progressive base not going along with the plan. And after doing various things to try to hide this/keep us in line have finally realized that many are now seeing thru this (as indicated by this diary). Some now have gone back to the repugs (i.e the tea bagger movement) but most are continuing on this plan. Now trying to use terror tactics (i.e. do you really want to repugs to win) Instead of actually giving progressives/liberals something solid to keep then on. Only it seems like this is not working judging from the various low poll numbers and hints of dems staying home on November along with many now becoming indies.

And now this happens.

So yes, if things do keep going the way they are we may see the dems returning to their civil war roots as a minor party. All because they forgot they saying "Remember and treat with respect who brought you to the dance" or something like that. And it's downfall will be their own damn fault because of it. Leaving all of us dem indies to wonder at it all.

Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Ken Salazar, Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Tom Carper, Mark Warner, Ron Kirk, Larry Summers, Christine Gregoire, Martin O'Malley, and Harold Ford, Jr.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

Look familiar?

More of the DLC bunch

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_the_dlc_does_it

Koch brothers - that name rings a bell

and his $ paid off for him :mad:

Right around the time funds were running low, ca. Jennifer Flowers.

Mrs. Harriman's husband, Averell Harriman, helped lie America into war in Vietnam. He also, in the days before World War II, was a business partner with Prescott Bush, remembered today for helping finance Hitler.

Small world. Especially when it comes to money.

- It is now the DLC-Democratic Party. I didn't join that one. If we can't have "ours" back, then we need to make a new one.

"The problem with the left is that it was seduced by the practical, and that is what killed it
as a moral force." ~ Chris Hedges, http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/live_chat_chris_hedges_on_global_warming_20100721">"How corporations destroyed American democracy"

- If we'd had the correct perspective, we wouldn't have been in Vietnam flame-throwing at all. We would have been helping, teaching, healing.

Fire is passion in many ideas.

I don't think it means what you think it does.

I agree war is not good, but passions for better thoughts is better in my view, however passion can be for bad thoughts also.

...using a flame thrower in what appeared to be the jungles of Vietnam. The flame thrower, no matter how they might otherwise be made useful -- was not the product or invention of "good passions." It was designed to kill, maim and destroy.

When one is trying advance an idea of the fire to be found in good passions, it might be more helpful to utilize visualizations that are the product of good passions and not one showing how death and destruction is more efficiently delivered onto humanity.

:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

At the time I was really new and maybe too naive to really see where his policies were leading but looking back now I can't deny we took a wrong turn.

If you read our current party platform it sounds good and all the right words are there but in practice our governing style has been an exercise in parsing and denying the spirit and intent of the mission.

We really need a history lesson on what the party has represented in the past, what it's created and what it's prevented.

Carter lost to Reagan due to the hostages in Iran and the Arab oil embargo. But our party leaders foolishly overreacted, thinking it was a sign the Democratic party brand needed a drastic shift to the right. Enter the neoliberal Democrats. Goodbye, party of working people. Hello, Republican lite.

You are correct to say that redefinition happened with Clinton, since he was our first neoliberal Democratic president. But it has been an evolution that began three decades ago, and continues to this day.

The acceleration during Reagan's first 2 years was slight at best.

Blaming the systemic change in the economy due to the same exact imperial overreach that has affected every other superpower in history on Reagan doesn't work for me. Both the right and the left have had shortsighted responses to the problem that we haven't been able to afford our standard of living for about 50 years.

But I was thinking this discussion was about cause and effect. You challenged my argument, making a reasonable appeal to the principle of similar circumstances (which I don't agree with) and then went on to declare your opinion of the effect (we can't afford our standard of living) without bothering to opine about a cause.

Help me out of my shortsighted fog. If we haven't been able to afford our standard of living for the past 50 years, what has been the cause of that?

I heard a local radio show last night with young republicans and I had to listen in that "ew smell this its gross" way. They were talking about how they and other young Republicans were sick of being the party of homophobia and racism and that the next generation of Republicans was destined to become more inclusive on social issues.

I thought, well shit, that'd basically put them to the left of many Democrats. And since the Democrats aren't even centrist on economic issues anymore, I suspect the parties of the future will be nothing but personality contests without substance.

:eyes:

Frankly, we had better keep our counsel with regards the Tea people. They may actually see what the GOP is all about; don't give 'em any more chance to hate us by insulting them; we may be talking with them.

and most other progressive blogs.

Add that to the fact that Seniors and those within 5 or 10 years of becoming seniors covered by SS are now infuriated, some petrified, by Dino's throwing the immense surplussed of their hard earned SS into the mix to pay down the National Debt shortchanging them in the process.

These things most seniors will not understand; That these criminal excesses are from a past right wing administration; Who have stolen their savings, their IRA's and all moneys not nailed down including the SS Trust fund; Because that theft is now sanctioned by a deaf dumb and blind DLC, as it continues recruiting right wing Pugs to run as democrats. Making it a sure bet Democrats will lose in the fall and never have a clue just why that happened; As they did not, in the Ma. loss to brown for the same obvious reasons.

Folks over 50, represent a huge percentage of the voting population and can easily make or break an election for Democrats. Folks that will be the most affected by the mushrooming rumors of raising the retirement age or other unnamed cuts, to bring down the National debt, a large part of which is SS; Because the government has already stolen it for welfare for the rich.

Even now the dinos cannot figure out why polls are showing deep falls in democratic support while unspecified cuts in SS rumors fly; Effecting the lives of millions who's lives depend on SS.

A blind eye that is nothing less than criminal; As it is we who are and will be the losers of this careless cat and mouse game of bluff the seniors and left wing progressives.

"Gee" the DLC says, I just cant figure out why our popularity has fallen off the charts; It has to be those left wing progressive crybabies.

K+R

There's always been a Right-wing within the Democratic Party. They're usually the ones who get America into new wars and gut existing social welfare programs. They're nasty SOBs who talk a nice, fuzzy "inclusive" liberal game, but are really cold, calculating corporate bastards.

They run the top echelons of the country's corporations, banks, law firms, universities, and the Democratic Party - they are The Establishment - what C. Wright Mills termed, "The Power Elite".

Well said.

The first part of your post is talking about how we didn't prosecute the Bush administration. Well, Obama made it clear that he was not going to do so, yet he was elected anyway (and got virtually all of the Democratic vote). And before that, Pelosi took impeachment off the table (before the 2006 elections). So this is not a re-definition. In fact, going and prosecuting the previous administration would be a re-definition. (And obviously, assuming we do not prosecute, the fact that they have "profitable associations" is nothing to be surprised about -- all former administration officials have "profitable associations").

Van Jones was out because he signed a truther petition. Truthers should not work in a Democratic administration.

You know what happened with Sherrod. That was a mistake, and there have been more apologies for that than Bush ever made for anything in 8 years.

Woman's rights have not been marginalized at all relative to the past. The executive order went no further than the Hyde amendment, which has been law for decades. To the extent that the executive order applied the Hyde amendment, it did not do so to "pacify the religious right." It did so to pass healthcare reform. Without the executive order to do nothing more than apply current law, the greatest social welfare bill since Medicare would not have passed.

Alan Simpson remains on the fiscal commission because it is a bipartisan commission, and the leadership of one party cannot "fire" the leadership of the other party. The commission has absolutely no power. Any recommendations they make need to win the vote of a majority of the House and 60 votes in the Senate, and have to be signed by the President. The commission is just a way to get people from both parties talking. If recommendations pass that we don't like, that is the fault of the people that VOTE for the recommendations in Congress, and the President for signing them into law. The commissioners have no more power to make recommendations than you or I.

Last time I checked, Obama was not responsible for which teachers were fired or the way they were fired.

The only reason people from the left of the administration might be disparaged is if they make baseless criticisms. For example, people who say HCR should not have passed from the left (for the most part) are making baseless criticisms. These criticisms are being disparaged, and they should be disparaged. Most people who make criticism of this form simply have their facts wrong and do not accurately reflect what is in the bill.

Another form of criticism that is frequently disparaged is criticism blaming the administration for not having 60 progressive votes in the Senate. In this case, blame should be directed at the 60th vote in the Senate (currently Olympia Snowe), or the electorate that put them there. Criticism aimed at the wrong place should be disparaged, since blaming the wrong people hurts accountability, misleads people, and prevents progress.

This is not to say that there isn't legitimate criticism about the administration. The administration clearly has significant power over foreign affairs, and its execution of that power is clearly center-left instead of left on some issues. To the extent that people want a more left-leaning foreign policy, this is completely legitimate criticism, and it should be directed directly at the White House. However, I rarely (if ever) see criticism of Obama's foreign policy "disparaged" by the administration. The only criticism I see "disparaged" is criticism that for the above reasons isn't really valid or is directed at the wrong people.

"The right wing extremists are not called out like we on the "left" are."

That is just false. Obama calls out right wing extremists all the time, and lately it has been practically every day.

"As Octafish said..we are in the middle of seeing our party redefine what it means to be a Democrat."

For all of the above reasons, I do not believe it is being redefined at all. Much of the "redefinition" is easily explained (as above). Most of the remaining difference is simply the difference between being an opposition party (where one can take most positions without consequence) and a governing party (where compromises are always made and have always been made since the beginning of time). We have only been a governing party (holding the White House, House, and Senate) for 4 years of the last 30 years, so the transition from opposition to governing can sometimes be jarring. But this does not mean Obama is doing something wrong -- it is just a problem with peoples' expectations of what a governing party can get done in this country (especially with fewer than 60 votes in the Senate who agree with the agenda).

This isn't just limited to Democrats; the Republican base was similarly angry at Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Bush II in particular failed on Social Security privatization, ANWR drilling, and immigration reform, despite holding the Presidency, the House, and 55 votes in the Senate. This country has a unique political system (supermajority Senate requirement to end debate since 1806, potential for divided government since 1791, etc.) where change from the status quo is very difficult and much of a party's wanted change simply never happens.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Anyone with half a brain (looking at it objectively) knew EXACTLY what this meant.

All of this "investigation" stuff is completely besides the point. Obama (and others) knew EXACTLY what Bush did. The question was whether to prosecute or not prosecute. Sure, an official investigation would occur if Obama thought what Bush did deserved prosecution. But much what Bush did was clear as day to everyone, so Obama did not need any investigation to make the determination for whether to start the process. The pertinent question was clearly whether to start the process that could lead to prosecution.

And the answer to that question was clearly NO (in the campaign, by saying he was going to look forward instead of backwards over and over and over). Anyone who thinks Obama said or meant anything else is seeing what they want to see, and taking great liberties with what Obama said and clearly meant.

that "looking forward" meant ignoring the rule of law. Because Obama clearly stated he was all for enforcing the law. And we didn't know it would mean leaving the Bush DOJ intact and in charge. Especially in light of Bush team abuses. So spare me your 'we should have known all along' bullshit talking points. Why do you think so many of us are so pissed off? Maybe we just didn't get our pony.

then that is a problem with your understanding of the English language, not with Obama. Obama made his intentions VERY clear. It's one thing to disagree with Obama, but it is another thing to pretend that Obama didn't make his intentions clear.

Of course Obama did not say he wasn't going to enforce the law. Obama simply has a different interpretation of the law than you do, and a different set of priorities for devoting finite resources to enforcement of different laws. TONS of alleged law violations are effectively "not enforced" due to resources not being devoted to them for investigation and prosecution (or conflicting interpretations of the law by people making these decisions). This happens in every state and the federal government every day.

Luckily for us, Obama made his priorities and interpretation very clear MULTIPLE times during the campaign. If Obama intended to prosecute, he would not have said that he is going to look forward as opposed to backwards in the context of prosecuting Bush et al. There would be NO REASON for him to say that if he intended to investigate and prosecute, as investigating and prosecuting are BY DEFINITION "looking backward." It is quite literally as simple as that.

hardly constitutes ignoring violations of the law.

The Bush Administration tortured. Torture is the worst of crimes and puts the perpetrators right there with the Nazi Germans and the Imperial Japanese in WWII. Lying us into the Iraq War was no different than how the Nazis made up events as an excuse to invade Poland. Yet you say voters should have known Obama would ignore crimes of this magnitude? I'm not buying it! And this doesn't even get into Bush Administration illegal wiretapping.

I think you are one of the agents of misinformation.

Obama obviously does not agree with you about the magnitude of the crimes or whether or not they were even crimes. He OBVIOUSLY doesn't believe that Bush lied us into war. So of course he is not going to order an investigation of a "crime" that he doesn't even believe occurred.

He then VOTED for FISA in the Senate, which made much of the type wiretapping conducted under Bush unambiguously legal, MONTHS before the election.

Agent of misinformation? You should take a look in the mirror.

believes W Bush lied us into the Iraq War.

Even Laura Fucking Bush knows W Bush lied us into the Iraq War. The entire earth knows full well that W Bush lied us into the war. No one could actually believe otherwise. They might play along with the official story but we all know that Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Condi are war criminals not all that much different than their Nazi forerunners. And Obama knows it.

in the oval office speech earlier this week.

He knows it, the world knows it. Bush lied us into the Iraq War to enrich his cronies. Don't deny it. Obama is too intelligent not to know and believe it. EVERYONE knows it.

Didn't Pelosi go on national TV and say there was no evidence? Perhaps you could send the evidence EVERYONE but her has and get the ball rolling?
And while your at it, how about some evidence that PRESIDENT Obama is lying.....again?

And Pelosi was just repeating the "official story". That doesn't mean she actually believes it. Bush lied us into war to enrich his evil cronies. We all know it.

I uh, own the largest castle in the world, worth millions, and will sell it to you for ten grand. Just send me the money and I will send you the deed.


:rofl:

are laughing at me.

You heard what I said.

Richard Clarke made it perfectly clear that they seized 9/11 as their "Pearl Harbor" excuse to take us to war. Obama's decision to not prosecute these bastards is despicable. He has proven to be such a wimp that the Republicans are so embolden that they going to attempt to drive him out of office by impeaching him.

I don't give a damn what he said , hinted at or didn't. He has a responsibility, and is sworn to UPHOLD THE LAW! Nothing else means jack shit.

Doing otherwise is criminal and impeachable.

:fistbump:

him doing exactly what he said in the campaign is not a "re-definition," especially given Pelosi's taking impeachment off the table. Actually prosecuting would be a re-definition.

can (and should) mean re-instating the rule of constitutional law. Before he was president, Barack Obama taught constitutional law.

Perhaps some people were "looking forward" to ignoring constitutional law, if we take some DUers at their word.

them.

I'm so glad that you are here to explain these things to me and others.

I've got more than half a brain. I understand the term looking forward. It meant to focus on a better future. It does not mean ignoring the past. It does not mean repeating the past.

Your whole post is revisionist bullshit. But hey. Your team won. The significance of your party lost, but your team won. Rah.

and were very vocal about their disagreement. The idea that Obama DIDN'T imply he wouldn't prosecute -- that is truly revisionist bullshit.

Bush was doing, so he couldn't prosecute Bush, or else he'd be prosecuted too.

That's all it meant.

That was when he said he wouldn't prosecute. Saying that he would look forward wasn't the same as saying he wouldn't prosecute. I knew he wouldn't because he said he would not prosecute. The bullshit is in taking the phrase Looking Forward and turning it into code. There wasn't any code. He flat out threw prosecution off the table.

Arguing semantics isn't the point. It might be a nice way to avoid the issue, but the issue is his decision to let bushco ride off into the money sunset. Then the question is whether you agree that bush and company should not be held accountable. Do you agree with Obama that the bush and cheney crimes should be ignored and forgotten? Do you?

in the case of bush, inc, if you investigate you prosecute because there is so much illegal stuff there
that you couldn't not find it. the only way to not find it is to not look.

he didn't look. obama lied. period.

PS: i don't remember him saying outright that he would not prosecute, but i do not question that he
would say both things at different times.

i don't have time or energy to google it for you but it's true and you're wrong.

did you even consider that he said both things because he's a fucking politician and they do that all the time?

did it occur to you that one could "look forward" AND investigate? did it ever occur to you that the absolute very best thing to do FOR THE FUTURE would be to publicly investigate (and of course prosecute because bush, inc crimes are legion and flagrant)? no, because you're a fucking obamaphiliac and you'd rather be fellating the hyperchessmaster-in-chief.

you fucking obamaphiiliacs kill me. when we say we don't like his foreign policy you say, he's doing what he said he would do.

but when we point out that he says he's going to investigate and doesn't, you say it's beside the point and we should read between the lines.

you'd be laughable if you weren't so dangerous.

Right. We should believe George W Bush and Richard B Cheney. They always tell the truth, especially when together.

Not under oath, though.

What Ian Fleming wrote in "Goldfinger":

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

Believing Bush and Cheney did not intentionally cause 9/11 or let it happen is NOT the same as believing anything they say.

After all, if they claimed that the Earth was round, would you then claim they were lying, and that the Earth is actually flat (solely because they said it)? Didn't think so.

You point out that even though they are liars doesn't mean they always lie. It's as if lying America into two illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous wars were something that could have happened to anybody.

I'll err on the side of caution and I won't give Bush and Cheney and the rest of their connected crooks the benefit of the doubt, from Wall Street to warmongering. For their inaction before 9-11 alone they need to be investigated.

Why you find that faulty logic, I have no idea. Must be some kind of sophisticated multidimensional smear campaign, calling people who disagree with Bush and Cheney, "Truther."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.