Democrats Good. Republicans Bad.

That's it, in a nutshell.



Details:

Almost every single puke on the national scene is, to put it in as straightforward a manner as possible, a turd: greedy, ignorant, trickle-down corporatist cronie capitalist warmonger.

The trouble is, a number of Democrats -- including many, if not all, in leadership positions today -- are on that same wavelength. Hence, the expression: "Rubin Democrats." Be nice to Wall Street and its owners and everything will work itself out.

And that's why we have the divisions in the Democratic Party and on DU. That approach is not working, wars are raging, and the People are hurting.

Think I'm wrong? Why are We the People asked to "sacrifice" and not the nation's billionaires and millionaires?

It's time to not only think outside the box, but to change the shape of the box. We need to put the needs of the People ahead of the needs of Big Money. THINK BIG. That's what we Democrats do best.

On July 20, 1969, humans walked on another world for the first time. We did so because of the work of 400,000 or so men and women -- and the vision of one man, President John F. Kennedy.



Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, aboard Eagle,
the Lunar Excursion Module, begin their descent to the surface of the moon.
The photo was taken by Michael Collins aboard the Command Module, Columbia.

President Kennedy's rationale in challenging and directing the nation to land a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth was clear: He wanted to show the world that the United States would win the "space race" -- and overtake the Soviets who had been first to orbit a satellite, Sputnik 1, and first to put a man in orbit, Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin.

Here's a great resource from NASA about President Kennedy and Apollo 11:



What JFK's innermost motives for the speech were, I can easily guess. He wanted to show the world that a free people could accomplish the impossible -- getting a man to the moon had been considered impossible since the dawn of history.

He also wanted, I believe, to show that if we could figure out how to the moon and back, we could face any problem on earth and solve it -- from ending hunger, poverty and ignorance to creating a lasting peace.

The space program would make an excellent example of what we could do, working together. Rather than building missiles and bombers and bombs, we invested in high technology that resulted in real benefits for us on earth -- from great jobs to scientific and engineering breakthroughs to improved communications to increased productivity. The computer you are using to read this is a direct result of investment in the space program needed to miniaturize computers. Imagine what we could have done if we had continued with that approach?



With the problems facing the nation and our world, we need a President with that can-do spirit again.

Lord knows we haven't had too many since November 22, 1963.

That's what my kind of Democrats -- JFK, FDR, HST -- apply the powers of government to make life better for ALL Americans.



But, going from the past 32 months, it's doubtful he wants to -- or'll be allowed to.

I guess the inner party are the pukes. The outer party are Rubin Dems. We the People are just proles and cannon fodder.



But, yes. We are living in a totalitarian nightmare the likes of which few authors understood or predicted -- Orwell, being one of them.

The Fascist and Non-Fascist wings of the Money Party.

even while replacing the contents of the box with crap.

....just like Breyers did with their ice cream after they were purchased by Unilever.

Agree with your analogy, Woo-san. I want D's who are D's, through and through. Here's details on the Rubin Ds from the official who busted the S&L crooks (a guy who campaigned for Obama):

An Economic Philosophy That Has Completely Failed

I get President Obama's "regulatory review" plan, I really do. His game plan is a straight steal from President Clinton's strategy after the Republican's 1994 congressional triumph. Clinton's strategy was to steal the Republican Party's play book. I know that Clinton's strategy was considered brilliant politics (particularly by the Clintonites), but the Republican financial playbook produces recurrent, intensifying fraud epidemics and financial crises. Rubin and Summers were Clinton's offensive coordinators. They planned and implemented the Republican game plan on finance. Rubin and Summers were good choices for this role because they were, and remain, reflexively anti-regulatory. They led the deregulation and attack on supervision that began to create the criminogenic environment that produced the financial crisis.

The zeal, crude threats, and arrogance they displayed in leading the attacks on SEC Chair Levitt and CFTC Chair Born's efforts to adopt regulations that would have reduced the risks of fraud and financial crises were exceptional. Just one problem -- they were wrong and Levitt and Born were right. Rubin and Summers weren't slightly wrong; they put us on the path to the Great Recession. Obama knows that Clinton's brilliant political strategy, stealing the Republican play book, was a disaster for the nation, but he has picked politics over substance.

I explained in a prior column how the anti-regulators made the crisis possible and caused the loss of over 10 million jobs.

Anti-regulation proved to be a profoundly negative sum "game" in the financial sphere. Both principals -- the home borrower and the lender -- lost (negative Pareto optimality). The unfaithful "agents," however, made out like bandits.

CONTINUED...

Hence, the expression, "Shared Sacrifice." As in, "We take your share. You get the sacrifice."

Too many old school conservatives left the R banner for the D. This left the old party open for control by the whackadoodle talibornagain and formed the core of the now defunct DLC which was replaced with the turd way.

When you sully a brand, it needs be changed, eh?

Thanks for giving a crap, Der Fishie.

-Hoot

A place chock full o' good ideas: The Roosevelt Institute

AIAS: You are one of the DUers I immediately think of when I think of Thinkers, hootinholler.

And, as with any monumental shift, there will be resistance. If Rs move to the Ds and the remaining Rs become completely divorced from the mainstream, there is vacuum created that must be filled by accompanying movement away from the new Ds. This is not a bad thing but the process is not going to be very pretty.

The question is who seriously could rise? We've seen the TP rise and there's another astroturf third candidate effort underway, but they will never allow a real people's candidate to be nominated.

I suspect a serious discussion would necessarily dance close to DU rules, but I think it important to discuss at a minimum as a threat to the election of Democrats.

-Hoot

that was just TR trying to pull a Lieberman.

Now the populist party was a real party, and they actually controlled a number of state legislatures (in places like Kansas and NoDak. However, they got co-opted by the Democratic Party when their candidate, William Jennings Bryan, was nominated as the Democratic candidate as well.

The last successful 3rd party was the Republican Party.

Those on the left will have to either become begrudging corporatist and support them hoping to teach Keynesian economics to those that refuse to learn (in my opinion a quixotic adventure)

Or else we will finally have to face the fact that the party we have been trying to bring back to it's former glory of standing for the people, their rights and their livlihoods has now finaly after all attempts to revive, died on the table.

It is now a corpse propped up next to the Republicans to maintain the illusion of a choice. Even if the corpse wins it will only be used as a ventriloquist dummy for banks , oil, and military talking points.

We have to stop holding up the corpse like some political version of weekend at bernie's. and admit that we must gather together in the wilderness and ally ourselves with the Unions the workimg poor and the poor and begin the work of forming a party that will stand for what Democrats once did, revive the platform of FDR and give it not lip service but support and expression in legislation submitted by a third party, The son of the Democratic party so to speak, now that it has died and left us with simply another Republican alternative, it must be reborn or be lost to history.

The Corporate political employes have stolen our name for their abomination. So we will be forced to choose a new one, perhaps Labor Party, or just go with the Socialist Democratic party.
It will take time, but we are getting nothing but Reagan and worse from the corpse right now, so we have finally reached a point where we simply have no other options left to us except to breathe life back into the principles and ideas that fought back the last assault of the super wealthy.

If we just go along to get along with either party all we will get is neo-feudalism.
I prefer to fight for the only ideas that brought shared prosperity and a moral and secure nation.

The corpse is dead, any more time spent on it is time spent on our own destruction. They will only bring us third world wages without security, a land where only the ultra rich can know security and joy.

If this fails, it will only be a matter of time before the hungry and sick that can not get help will explode in numbers and then explode in bloodshed. Once the rich prince said "let them eat cake" or more precisely, "let them eat peas", they stopped hiding the green skin of the corporate corpse as the stench became too pungent to continue to ignore.

But, say that more than one time at DU and they'll beat you to death over the head about not liking Nancy "Compromise" Pelosi.

Somethings are difficult to forget:



We do need new leadership. And it isn't just us, Major Hogwash, who've noticed the wars are still going and the rich are still getting richer.

But, what really got me was in 2009, almost 2 years later, when we had the bull by the horns and ALL 3 elements of government under Democratic leadership -- the White House, the Senate, and the House -- and we did nothing, not ONE damn thing to slow those wars down.

And now we come to find out they want to keep US troops in Afghanistan until 2024.
That's not going to cut it with me.
There's no way in hell I'm willing to just sit back and let that happen.

:kick:

One big reason that there are as many repuglians today as there are is that the television screen and airwaves are full of right-wing hatred. Here in the Motor City, one FM sports talk station is being transmuted as we speak into an organ of right-wing propaganda.

Those new to the subject would do well to think about why the War Party and Wall Street get the gold and We the People get the shaft. It's the same reason they do all they can to fill our heads with dreck.





And to think some DUers were emphatic in deriding those who still defended the antiquated notion of a "Fairness Doctrine."

PS: Thanks for the kick! And thank you for all you do, WillyT!

I feel they will win elections.

As the party that has stood for America's working people is one of the most important reasons I am a Democrat. What I see happening, is the party leadership is no longer doing that. And that's a problem of historic proportion. To keep me and you, Tiggeroshii and the rest of the working, progressive and liberal Democrats together is for the Democratic leadership to act like Democrats.

Democrats use the power of government to make life better for ALL and believe all people are equal under the law, all have a voice equal to one another's in politics and governance, all have a right to: Justice. Peace. Work. Prosperity. Equality. Progress. Enlightenment. Etc. Etc. Etc.

That also means ending "Washington -- Business as Usual." Most of all, Democrats would end corruption, starting with:

America: Where Money Trumps Peace™

Not only is that idea un-American, it's treasonous.

Since Labor is beginning to start their own system, they will be the only active part of the Democratic party left that could actually appeal to people, mobilize them and win elections.

Christians good! Muslims bad!

People of Faith good! Atheists bad!

Thin people good! Fat people bad!

Americans good! Foreigners bad!

Whoever "we" are good! Whoever "they" are bad!


Wheeeee!!! :party:

If you did read that, what makes you come to the Either/Or conclusion?

If some Democrats are allegedly espousing the same values as Republicans, then that makes them DINOs, right?

No better than Republicans.

And that's not good.


Put it in as many fancy sounding words as one likes...that's the gist of what's under the photo. Democrats have to stop acting like Republicans.

Because Republicans are bad.

If they like the same things as Ronald Reagan, such as war for profit and trickle-down economics, yes, I don't like that.

Call me idealistic.

I like my Democrats to be Democrats too.

But that doesn't mean Democrats are good while Republicans are bad.


No more than it means Christians are good while Atheists are bad.

Or that Atheists are good while Christians are bad.


"Good" and "bad" are relative terms depending on which side one is on.

Gosh. What a difference five years makes for those with the means.

Bit o' background:

The Party of Davos

by Jeff Faux
www.thenation.com/, February 13, 2006/ via ThirdWorldTraveler.com

EXCERPT...

Americans are of course prominent members of this "Party of Davos," which relies on the financial and military might of the US superpower to support its agenda. In exchange, the American members of the Party of Davos get a privileged place for their projects--and themselves. Whether it's at Davos, at NATO headquarters or in the boardroom of the International Monetary Fund, heads turn and people listen more carefully when the American speaks.

"Davos Man," a term coined by nationalist scholar Samuel Huntington, is bipartisan. To be sure, Democrats tend to be more comfortable with the forum's informal seminar-style and big-think topics like global poverty, cultural diversity and executive stress. Bill Clinton goes often, and Al Gore, John Kerry, Robert Rubin, Madeleine Albright, Joe Biden and other prominent Democrats are familiar faces. Republicans generally prefer more private venues. George W. Bush, of course, doesn't do anything unscripted. But people like Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and Condoleezza Rice have all worked the Davos circuit.

That the global economy is developing a global ruling class should come as no shock. All markets generate economic class differences. In stable, self-contained national economies, where capital and labor need each other, political bargaining produces a social contract that allows enough wealth to trickle down from the top to keep the majority loyal. "What's good for General Motors is good for America," Dwight Eisenhower's Defense Secretary famously said in the 1950s. The United Auto Workers agreed, which at the time seemed to toss the notion of class warfare into the dustbin of history.

But as domestic markets become global, investors increasingly find workers, customers and business partners almost anywhere. Not surprisingly, they have come to share more economic interests with their peers in other countries than with people who simply have the same nationality. They also share a common interest in escaping the restrictions of their domestic social contracts.

The class politics of this new world economic order is obscured by the confused language that filters the globalization debate from talk radio to Congressional hearings to university seminars. On the one hand, we are told that the flow of money and goods across borders is making nation-states obsolete. On the other, global economic competition is almost always defined as conflict among national interests. Thus, for example, the US press warns us of a dire economic threat from China. Yet much of the "Chinese" menace is a business partnership between China's commissars, who supply the cheap labor, and America's (and Japan's and Europe's) capitalists, who supply the technology and capital. "World poverty" is likewise framed as an issue of the distribution of wealth between rich and poor countries, ignoring the existence of rich people in poor countries and poor people in rich countries.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ruling_Elites/Party_Davos.html

"Rubin Democrats" has kind of an exclusive ring to it. Which is the point: The upper class already has a party looking after its interests.

On a fundamental level, things have been really messed up since Reagan.

The Party of Davos

by Jeff Faux
www.thenation.com/, February 13, 2006/ via ThirdWorldTraveler.com

EXCERPT...

But Clinton was more Davos than Democrat. Tutored by financier Robert Rubin, a prodigious fundraiser who became his Treasury Secretary, Clinton embraced a reactionary, pre-New Deal vision of a global future in which corporate investors were unregulated and the social contract was history. Indeed, in all three countries it was the leaders of the political parties that had historically claimed to represent ordinary people--the Democrats' Clinton, the Liberal Party's Jean Chrétien and the Institutional Revolutionary Party's Salinas--who delivered NAFTA to their global corporate clients, undercutting their own constituencies. "NAFTA happened," said the then-chairman of American Express, "because of the drive Bill Clinton gave it. He stood up against his two prime constituents, labor and environment, to drive it home over their dead bodies."

SNIP...

Consistent with a deal among the rich and powerful, NAFTA made the distribution of income, wealth and political power more unequal throughout the continent. In all three countries, wages in manufacturing fell behind productivity increases, shifting income from labor to capital. Ordinary Mexicans especially went through the economic wringer--to which the willingness of hundreds of thousands of them to risk their lives each year crossing the border continues to be tragic testimony.

SNIP...

Banamex, the country's second-largest bank, was bought by a Mexican syndicate, owned by Salinas pal Roberto Hernandez Rodriguez, for $3.2 billion and when, thanks to NAFTA, foreigners were allowed to own Mexican banks, it was resold to Citigroup for $12.5 billion. Robert Rubin negotiated the deal for Citigroup, where he had gone after leaving the Treasury Department. The Mexican government's welfare program for Citigroup and other foreign investors continues: In 2003 government subsidies to private banks (more than 85 percent of them now owned by foreigners) were almost three times those spent on roads, schools and other infrastructure.

NAFTA was only the beginning. The Clinton/Republican alliance then pushed through the WTO agreement and the subsequent deal with China that traded off more US industrial jobs in exchange for protections for US investors in that huge Asian market. Not only has this produced a massive trade deficit with China and further downward pressure on US wages, it has also sent some 250,000 jobs from Mexico to China. The ubiquitous Citigroup, with banking operations in 100 countries, is now busy building its Chinese banking empire--with Chinese partners.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ruling_Elites/Party_Davos.html

Let's make Democrats stand for something more than just the rich and powerful. Our nation needs us.

They play three card Monty.

The House of Representatives, that is.
Where all of the bluedawg Democrats held up the healthcare bill for more than a year arguing about whether the healthcare bill would allow for abortions to be paid for with federal dollars, despite there being a law on the books preventing that already, while the rest of the country went deeper and deeper into recession without new jobs.


What does a Democrat look like to you? ---
Starts wars by voting for them, and then never votes to end them.
Votes for looking into cutting Social Security because old people suck.
Takes public option "off the table" before there is even any discussion of it.
Looks the other way when the Fed hands out $1.2 Trillion dollars in loans to banks and doesn't report it to the GAO.

Yeah, sure sounds like the FDR Democrats I used to know.
Sure, sure.

...a sample:

Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Henry Paulson, Banker to the BFEE

Know your BFEE: Olympic Games Show Who’s Best Friends Forever with Authoritarians and Dictators

Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nation’s S&Ls for Power and Profit

Know your BFEE: War and Oil are just two longtime Main Lines of Business

Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

Three Things Every American Should Know About Corporate McPravda

Truth is what we need. I'd never considered it a distraction.