The real fight isn't Clinton vs. Christie.

[last1standing]

The real fight isn't MSNBC vs. FOX, either.

The real fight isn't Democrats vs. republicans.

Amazingly, the real fight isn't even Warren vs. Clinton.

The real fight that we should all be engaged in is between the 1% and everyone else. It doesn't help to elect a Democrat who pushes for "grand bargains" that help the wealthy while starving the poor. It won't serve the cause tuning into television shows that ridicule the Occupy movement and then pimp for "moderate" politicians who collect the bulk of their campaign funds from Wall Street bankers.

This post should be stating the obvious, but for some reason it seems like it needed to be said today.

[Mass]

1. I do not agree. The needs of the bottom 10 % are not the same than the need of people in the upper

half.

By grouping the 99 % together for more than an occasional action, you pretty much systematically ignore the specific need of the low income people, because people in the top tier will have more input and power.

Certainly, the top 1% should participate a lot more to the need of the country, but we also need to prioritize the needs of the poorest vs those of the upper middle class.

[last1standing]

2. The lowest 10% will never succeed against the upper 90% alone.

They never have and never will. Besides, I believe the needs of the lower 99% are essentially the same but from different perspectives. Solid social and economic safety nets and labor equality help everyone.

[Mass]

3. No, but they can bring awareness that their needs are different, that they do not belong to the

middle class, that their problem is not to pay a mortgage, but to put a roof over their head, for example.


It is a shame that endemic poverty still exists in this country and that we refuse to see it because we are lost in the "middle class" and "American Dream" myth.

[Auggie]

6. Whatever the percentage -- 1 or 10 -- I agree with the OP

[bvar22]

4. Me & Paul agree.

[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their works.

[last1standing]

5. That picture and quote never get old.

Thanks.

[bvar22]

7. Never gets old for me either.

I love this one too:
[font size=3]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."[/font]
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]

[last1standing]

11. We lost a great advocate when his plane went down.

We have a few fighters today but he led the way.

[MyNameGoesHere]

8. The real fight may be between the 1%

and everyone else. But that battle will never be fought as long as the 99% still believe in the American dream bullshit. You would think a country with such a huge economic disparity would be embroiled in a internal conflict. Perhaps in another country it would. But here, the fools still believe they will one day be allowed to play in the 1% playground. That's absurd. Yet they still struggle along believing one day this"fair" system will reward them. We are stuck on stupid.

[cheapdate]

9. The Democratic Party stands about a 50-50 chance of holding (or losing however you to look at it)

the majority in the Senate in 2014. That's neither pessimistic nor optimistic, that's reality. The Democrats are losing 3 senate seats due to retirement. To keep control, they'll need to win all of the likely races and a majority of the toss-ups, that is, they'll need to almost run the table just to keep control.

The Democrats chances of taking the House are extremely unlikely, practically non-existent to be honest.

The presidential race may be extremely important in 2016 if the GOP wins the senate.

The grand vision for social justice and a just society is a wonderful thing. I can push and fight and seek to influence the debate, while still being smart about it.

What I'm saying is that Democrats vs. Republicans IS A REAL FIGHT. And the fight for all of us vs. the oligarchs IS A REAL FIGHT also.

[last1standing]

10. If you are saying we need to elect blue dogs so that progressives can move their agenda, I agree.

If you're saying we need to elect blue dogs merely because they're running on the Democratic ticket, I don't. Electing another Joe Lieberman or Max Bacchus doesn't do any good if they're given the power to thwart the will of the 99%.

Therefore the real fight is the 99% vs. the 1%. If we can fight strategically, great, but let's not lose sight of why we chose this side to begin with.

[cheapdate]

12. I'm saying the former...

the progressive agenda is obviously better served when the Democratic Party is the senate majority caucus. Losing the senate would be a catastrophe for the progressive agenda. Max Baucus, by the way, is retiring and it's a virtual certainty that his senate seat will be taken by the GOP. I have deep and significant differences of opinion with Max Baucus, but the son-of-a-bitch caucused with the Democrats. His replacement won't.

[last1standing]

14. I did misspell "Baucus," didn't I? :(

My problem with Baucus isn't that he's a blue dog in a conservative state, it's that he was given so much power to thwart a progressive agenda. The fight doesn't end with an election; in fact, it never ends. We've allowed conservatives to take over much of the party infrastructure by placing them in powerful positions. Baucus should never have been allowed to dismantle so much of what was good in the ACA bill but he was given the power and he used it. Same thing goes for the stimulus bill.

Yes, we have to put up with conservative Dems in order to keep a majority, but our fight should continue to marginalize their agenda.

[TheKentuckian]

15. They are given power positions to bolster them in the eyes of their electorate, which in turn

helps take swingable seats off the table, making maintaining control easier.

Sound reasoning until you get to the point that you sell your soul to the devil and principles become somewhere between inconvenience and repellent.

[cheapdate]

16. Baucus was responsible for the complicated private insurance expansion

that we got. It's not single-payer. There's no Medicare For All and there's no public option. The law prohibits discrimination for pre-existing health conditions and makes cancelling policies a crime. Insurance companies are required to adopt community based pricing structure. Many discriminatory pricing practices are now banned.

I can't say for sure whether a better law was realistically possible. Sen Robert Byrd was wheeled onto the senate floor in his wheel chair to cast the final vote to invoke cloture and allow the vote on the bill to proceed. The legislation would have stalled with even a single Democratic defection.

We could have easily wound up with nothing. The Democrat's had a 60-vote majority with a margin of none.

Maybe it was a huge mistake or maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was the only compromise with any realistic chance of passage and maybe it was an unnecessary betrayal and a right-wing corporate power grab. I honestly can't tell which is the correct perspective.

I'm a fierce advocate of the progressive agenda and of many ideas far more radical than that, but I also understand that they count votes in Washington and not the passion of the supporters.

[last1standing]

17. "they count votes in Washington and not the passion of the supporters."

That is exactly what this post is about. We must fight for representatives who listen to the people.

[Uncle Joe]

13. I agree.

Thanks for the thread, last1standing.

[Enthusiast]

18. Recommended 1000X and kicked too.

[Jamaal510]

19. Not necessarily;

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 06:20 AM - Edit history (4)

"The real fight that we should all be engaged in is between the 1% and everyone else."

there are plenty of people who are part of the 1% who want more progressive fiscal policies. Warren Buffet is a 1%er who wants higher top taxes. Most of the MSNBC talking heads have been pushing for progressive fiscal policies, and they are all 1%ers. Even the highly-esteemed (at least on DU) Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are 1%ers, and they also want progressive fiscal policies. There are plenty of people (albeit far too many) who are part of the 99% who oppose that. If anything, it sounds more like a clash between those of us who care about having our basic needs met versus people near the top who only care about living the luxurious life and people nearer to the bottom who are being misled and still think that all it takes to get ahead nowadays is hard work.

Another point I want to add is that Democrats many times are forced to get in line with grand bargains in order to get things done and avoid shutdowns in this political climate, because of the political hostage-takers from across the aisle in Congress. I have no doubt that Pres. O et al. would push for more progressive fiscal policies if they had more help. He said himself recently that there are things he would do that he wish he could if it were not for the Republicans, like raising the minimum wage. It's no wonder why people such as the Koch Brothers have been throwing money at people to thwart his agenda. The Democratic Party knows that their base doesn't like much of the stuff in the bargains. There is stuff in the bargains that the Republican base has a disdain for, too, like top tax hikes. If progressives don't want any more of these bargains with the GOP, then it is very important that more of us show up to vote in midterm elections (in addition to Presidential ones) to get rid of enough RWNJs. A President is not a king.