‘My Party Has Lost Its Soul’

[marmar]

via truthdig:



In a Salon review Sunday of Ralph Nader’s spring 2014 book “Unstoppable,” Bill Curry, former White House counselor to President Bill Clinton, takes Democrats led by Clinton and Barack Obama to task for making their party an indentured servant of Wall Street and gifting economic populism to the right.

Curry endorses Nader’s view that the present is ripe for a populist revival. Looking back to the Gilded Age, when “powerful trusts were turning farmers into wage slaves and the world’s greatest democracy into just another corrupt oligarchy,” he notes that agrarian populists “busted price fixing railroads and granaries, fought for rural free deliver and established cooperative banks that still provide a third of all credit to rural America.” Coming to the present, he writes:

Parallels to our own time could hardly be clearer. Like invasive species destroying the biodiversity of a pond, today’s global trusts swallow up everything smaller than themselves. The rules of global trade make organizing for higher wages next to impossible in developed and undeveloped countries alike. Fights for net neutrality and public Wi-Fi are exactly like the fight for rural free delivery. Small businesses are as starved for credit as small farmers ever were. PACs are our Tammany Hall. What’s missing is a powerful, independent reform movement.

Inaction from Democrats on these fronts has given populism to Republicans and their further-right colleagues. Tea party Sen. Rand Paul is a greater champion of privacy and opponent of empire than any of his liberal colleagues, Curry writes. And the tea party as a whole has railed “loudest against big banks and corporate corruption.”

And in response to the crisis, Democrats have had their eyes on the wrong solution, Curry explains:

Liberals have spent the intervening years debating macroeconomic theory but macroeconomics can’t fathom this crisis. This isn’t just a slow recovery from a financial sector collapse, or damage done by debt overhang or Obama’s weak tea Keynesianism. We’re in crisis because of all our broken systems; because we still let big banks prey on homeowners, students, consumers and retailers; because our infrastructure is decrepit; because our tax code breeds inefficiency and inequality; because foreign interventions bled us dry. We’re in peril because our democracy is dying. Reviving it will take more than deficit spending and easy money. It will take reform, and before that, a whole new political debate.

In response to this mess, Nader’s book advocates a cost-saving program that would earn credibility among the voting public by championing ethics, challenging big business, standing up for small businesses and incorporating new issues such as privacy. Obama was elected with a mandate to do all of these things. His victory was a win for populism. But as an exemplar of his party’s ethos he didn’t embrace the leadership. He didn’t “believe in ideas because [Democrats] don’t believe in people. Obama wasted years dickering with Republicans who wished him only ill. He should have talked to the people and let them talk to the Republicans,” ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/my_party_has_lost_its_soul_20140728

[MineralMan]

1. Using Ralph Nader as an example for anything having to do

Last edited Tue Jul 29, 2014, 03:13 PM - Edit history (2)

with the government of the United States is as lame as it gets. FRN and FRP, too.

When a writer has to turn to Ralph Nader and Ron Paul to put forward a position, the shark has truly been jumped.

[polichick]

2. Character assassination - what people use when they don't like the truth.

[MineralMan]

5. Clearly, I disagree with you.

[A Simple Game]

34. And I have to disagree with you. I think Nader is right.

So that means you don't think this is true?

Curry endorses Nader’s view that the present is ripe for a populist revival.

I think it's true and agree that the Democrats should take advantage of it. All polls point to a populist revival being overdue and the numbers would be even more overwhelming if the Democrats would exploit it. The public endorses the core Democratic principles, why won't the Democrats?

In fact shame on them for letting the tea party and Paul steal their thunder.

Hillary better hope the Democrats don't see the light too fast or she is out before she even gets started. Maybe we should wise up and win some elections because we have the best candidate.

[Orsino]

67. But pretending he isn't exempts our party...

...from the scrutiny some would apply only to the GOP.

[cui bono]

12. And extremely disturbing how often it happens on a site like DU.

[polichick]

13. Love your quotes!

[cui bono]

17. Edited since my comment was causing more divisiveness.

Last edited Thu Jul 31, 2014, 02:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I will say that I picked them out especially because of how important they are to what a true democracy is all about. It doesn't work unless the people are free to speak their minds and be critical of their govt. That's what it's all about, a representative govt that governs with the consent of the governed. So if we don't like what they're doing it is our duty to speak out about it.

[sheshe2]

45. LOL~ A reply from the BOG

[cui bono]

59. What does that mean? That you don't agree with the quotes in my sig?

[sheshe2]

63. Ah cui....

You be just poking fun at the BOG again with that quote. You have a knack for that.

"Thanks! I picked them out specifically for some very special DUers."

Uuuummm, nah you could not possibly have meant the BOG here. Snort.

You have labeled us, told us that we only walk in lockstep and are brainless. Good story cui and so very wrong. So no cui... I most certainly don't agree with your misconceptions that we do that.

Wrong read my friend. Try again.

[cui bono]

68. It's not poking fun. It's a very serious matter. I wish you would see that one day.

And why are you taking it so personally? How do you know it's towards you? Do you mean to say that you are someone who needs to read the quotes and take in their meaning?

You didn't answer whether or not you agree with the quotes... do you? Yes, I really want an aswer. A real honest one.

As to the BOG... it's no secret how closed minded the group is. Just look at the comments that get people banned... mild and tame. Look at how many people are banned. Compare it to how many are banned from other groups. I'm sure you've seen hundreds of comments on DU about how discriminatory the BOG is and how it is just a place for apologists to close their ears to the facts regarding current policy. It's not just me. It happens to be a fact. If you don't like it you can change it. But the BOG likes being the bubble. Just like the bubble Bill Maher talks about the Tea Party being in, same thing, different "team". Does no one any good and it hurts democracy. You are just buying into the game TPTB want us to play so they can get away with their bs and have people supporting it as it gets enacted, just because "their guy" is doing it.

[davidpdx]

78. I think your reply in #17 is telling in that it shows the condescending nature you take

toward the BOG group. Now feel free to go look, I've only posted in there less than a half dozen times. So I'm not one of the regulars in the group (then again I'm also not banned like some others). Possibly you should try to readjust your nose instead of thumbing it at people.

[cui bono]

81. I wish what you said were true. Then it wouldn't make my sig so important. However, the fact

of the matter is that there are people on here who attempt to stifle any and all criticism of the current administration, no matter what it does, and who then name call the critics and slander them rather than simply debate the policy.

Th quote are there for a purpose. To stress the importance of being allowed to speak out against the govt if it is wrong. That is the basis of democracy and those who try to suppress that are a danger to our democracy.

Sorry if it comes off condescending, but all you have to do is read some sample posts to see the hate filled name calling that gets thrown out at many other DUers by those who have decided to stick their head in the sand and not only ignore facts but refuse to even attempt to discuss anything. I don't see why I should show respect to those who are closed minded apologists whose posts consist mainly of name calling and smilies.

[davidpdx]

84. I don't support people shutting down conversations or criticism

I think criticism is healthy to some degree. At times I think DU can become a negative drone of everything we DIDN'T get and constantly condescending of those who remind us of what we DID get (aka apologists). No, President Obama is not perfect. Neither were Presidents Carter or Clinton. However, only only the latter (to a certain degree) had to deal with the level of animosity of the Republicans, his own party, the right-wing media. On top of that the internet was barely even moving by the time he got out of office (by that I mean the size and number of users). President Obama has had to deal with much more than either of his Democratic predecessors. I believe that it's only going to get worse, unless by some miracle we retake the House (which is unlikely in my opinion, but that's a topic for another thread).

People interpreted what he said in the campaign in different ways and because it didn't go EXACTLY as they hoped they have soured on Obama. Maybe you are one of those people. I don't know. I'm just going on based on some of the conversations I have heard on DU.

In terms of the condescending remark, putting a quote in your sig line is NOT the issue. It is the remark (and I don't remember it word for word without going back and looking) that you put it there for some special people is purposely drawing attention toward yourself for the purposes of putting down a group of people. Can you imagine the outrage if I DUer did that to another group? There would be a riot and the person would be flogged. You are specifically targeting a group of people in OUR party. Now had you not said that I don't think anyone would have cared about the quotes. Sometimes you just have to state your opinion and leave well enough alone and agree to disagree. Saying something that will bit you in the ass later (which I am just as guilty of, I'll admit) is not worth it.

[cui bono]

85. I think you're right actually. I did not need to make that comment seeing as how it is being

perceived.

I'm just so fed up with the attempts to stifle any criticism, which is the complete antithesis of what this country is supposed to be about. I don't think there's anything wrong with people posting positive things about Obama but I do think there's something very wrong with being unable to admit that he's done anything wrong at all. There's a very vocal group on here that not only refuses to acknowledge policy flaws but that attempts to shut down criticism either by disrupting threads with detraction or by character assassination or simple name calling. They refuse to ever talk about the issues and when asked straightforward questions they answer with smarmy retorts that have no content except for name calling (ODS, Paulbot, etc...) or other insults and then top it off with a rofl smiley. I guess I'm just so sick of it I let myself get dragged into the pettiness of it sometimes. I will add though, since you made that comment on if it were another group, the group that needs to grasp the meaning of the quotes is unlike any other group in that they ban for no real reason, without warning (even though it seems most people didn't even know they were posting in a group's thread, and they are in there hiding from reality rather than attempting to deal with reality, so your comment about if it were another group doesn't apply really as there is no other group that acts like that one.

Anyway, I'm going to go edit that post though, even though I didn't mean for it to be so pointed. It's so well known across DU that there are people who try very hard to stifle any and all criticism that it seemed matter of fact to me that there are a number of people on here that really do need to see them and remember what this country's experiment in democracy is all about.

[sheshe2]

80. Yes, it is poking fun.

And, cui. I am far from stupid. I never said that it was directed at me as a person. You were talking about the BOG. We both know that.

" And why are you taking it so personally? How do you know it's towards you? Do you mean to say that you are someone who needs to read the quotes and take in their meaning?"

It's done by many here. Remember the thread where an OP posted they were banned from a group. LOL, everyone jumped on the thread to despair at how awful the BOG and HoF are. Yup, so quick to condemn, yet it was the environmental group for gawds sakes! They are a climate change denier, and blocked from that group. Ooopsie! How dare a group block them. Guess they never bothered to read the SOP that the admins allow as they do in all the groups.

Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025151629

"But the BOG likes being the bubble. ....Does no one any good and it hurts democracy. You are just buying into the game TPTB want us to play so they can get away with their bs and have people supporting it as it gets enacted, just because "their guy" is doing it."

Oh give me a break. So any one that posts in the BOG or rec's a thread is to you in total lockstep with this President? A bad bad BOGer. Yikes, you better have a talk with Skinner. He has reced posts there and does indeed support this President. Read the Sop's in the groups. There are rules that are to be followed here, we have a group where we can talk which has been given to us by the admins. So take it to Sinner as I have said to you before, he has said that the BOG stands and will continue to be allowed in GD. As for blocking a poster that never posted in a group, ummmm so sorry, you are so very wrong. You have to post in a group to get blocked.

Last response and then I am done. Many here support this President, it is far from blind support. Yet, like this President we are thoughtful calm and work through the issues. We do not set our hair on fire seeking every worst case scenario before a decision is made. Sadly many have done that here, the result was the opposite of all the issues they raised in thread after thread condemning this President.

[cui bono]

83. You didn't answer the question... do you disagree with the quotes?

And just because the group has it's SOP, that doesn't negate that it is closed minded and refuses to deal with facts. In fact, it's pretty much stating it right there. And it would be one thing if that was confined to the group, but it isn't. There are plenty who, rather than discuss an issue, simply attempt to smear anyone who dares speak out against the current administration no matter what group it is posted in.

I got banned for practically nothing. I didn't even know I was posting to the group. Not only that, I got banned with no warning. It's a shitty group that gets run shittily.

Your past paragraph is so far from reality it's sad that you think it is true. If it were true you wouldn't see so many comments from other DUers about the "BOGGERS". And as to your last sentence, the result was the result of people speaking out. The Summers trial balloon failed because so many people spoke out against it. Chained CPI failed because so many people spoke out against it. That's the point of democracy, people get to criticize the govt and speak out and hopefully affect policy. If we were never to criticize or speak out it would not be a democracy. Governed by the consent of the governed means something.

And your comment about thread after thread condemning the president is telling. You are more worried that he is being criticized than you are about the bad policy he pursues. And that right there is the crux of the problem. I truly hope one day you will see that you are not doing yourself or our country any favors by attempting to disallow any and all criticism of the administration. I really do.

The quotes in my sig are extremely important. The fact that you took them as directed at you/the BOG speaks volumes. Perhaps you should let them sink in. The country depends on it.

[cui bono]

86. I edited my initial comment since it was causing divisiveness.

That's really not what I want. However, I will not shy away from criticizing what I perceive as an attempt to stifle policy discussion and critique.

I still completely disagree with your reply to me. You are not getting what the issue is at all and you've misinterpreted what I'm saying about how the BOG is a bubble. It's not about whether someone recs a thread in there or not, it's about the SOP and how there is absolutely no allowance for anyone to say anything someone in there doesn't like or they get banned without warning. It doesn't really even have to necessarily be a criticism. Surely you can agree with that. And that attitude doesn't remain in the BOG. It's all over DU with the attempts to derail threads and slander anyone who criticizes Obama. There absolutely is, if not blind support of him, an incredible amount of apologists on DU when you see people defending cuts to SS, or denying that he ever put SS on the table, defending his NSA policy, defending the TPP or at least telling us we shouldn't criticize it. I mean come on, if you don't see that then you are absolutely in the bubble.

And I also never said someone gets blocked when they never posted in the group, I said people have been blocked without knowing they posted in the group. One sees a thread on the greatest page and responds and don't necessarily know or notice that it is in a particular group. It happened to me and I've read many posts of others it has happened to. That's why you should issue warnings. Hell you should issue warnings simply out of consideration for other DUers.

[L0oniX]

47. +1

[sheshe2]

57. For you LOonix~

I posted this to cui also!

A message from the BOG~

[cui bono]

69. So now you're saying that character assassination is fine?

I'd like to hear your justification for it.

[sheshe2]

73. Uuuum, character assassination?

[cui bono]

74. Um... read the subthread. That's what L0onix was agreeing was a problem on DU.

Which is the person you were responding to with that dismissive pic.

[Enthusiast]

24. I agree with you.

Some people wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit 'em on the ass.

[pscot]

43. Warren is the only remotely populist

Nationally known Democrat.

[Enthusiast]

64. If Democrats embraced populism

they could do very well in the 2014 elections. But that doesn't appear to be the true objective.

[L0oniX]

46. +1

[Mojorabbit]

53. +100 nt

[noiretextatique]

18. Nader hatred is stupidity at its finest

This man has done more to help consumers than anyone in congress. You should know that.

[pscot]

44. You do know there was life in America

before 2000. Nader, in his day, did more for the country than most presidents.

[tularetom]

56. Gore ran a crappy campaign, selected an asshole as running mate, distanced himself from a popular

president, pulled the plug on appeals after the recount was stopped prematurely by the courts, and somehow the fact that Bush became president was Nader's fault?

I'm not a huge Nader fan, but I think you're looking in the wrong direction for a scapegoat.

[cui bono]

70. Why is it that you choose to put Nader at fault if Gore is also to blame?

Why isn't Nader besides the point?

[cui bono]

72. To undercut the Dems or to fight for the people?

He was the only one really getting at the meat of the matter. Particularly how detrimental globalization is. Turns out he was right. Too bad more people didn't vote for him. Too bad the Dem Party has left the people behind.

[noiretextatique]

87. +1000

Poor deluded fucks.

[RufusTFirefly]

25. Classic denial. Chronically late people are forever blaming the traffic

...instead of coming to terms with their tardiness and learning how to be more punctual.


"It's always something."

Nader's candidacy was a teachable moment. As a party, we failed miserably.

In 2000, we were already showing signs of losing our way. Rather than getting back on track, we placed our emphasis on shooting the messenger instead and veered even further off course.

No one who knows me would ever in a million years confuse me with a Libertarian. Ever. Yet, like Medea Benjamin and others, I praised the otherwise execrable Rand Paul for his outspoken opposition to the drones. It's pathetic that no one in our party had the guts to speak up as forcefully. Similarly, you won't find me carrying water for Nazi-loving Patrick Buchanan and 90 percent of his paleo conservative agenda. But when it comes to his opposition to corporate domination, he's absolutely correct. Why aren't mainstream Democrats saying more and -- more importantly -- doing more to prevent corporations from becoming the de facto rulers of this country?

[cui bono]

75. Well said. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

82. Are you able to elucidate WHY using Nader as an example is "lame"?

Or is this one of those take-your-word-for-it things?

[SidDithers]

3. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

6. As worthless as the first time

Increasingly pathetic though. Congratulations!

[closeupready]

7. .....

[noiretextatique]

19. yeah...let's just fuck all the consumer protections

He initiated and had codified into law. Fuck all of that liberal Bs. the turd way has done a much better job

[randys1]

26. Nader haters may just not know (not being sarcastic) how important he is to history!

I am one of the ones who is mad as hell at him for running in 2000 and didnt he threaten to again in 2016?


But he has that right, so be it.

But I was around when he was accomplishing more for consumers than any other human being alive or dead ever has.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT the reference to Rand Paul is total and complete horseshit...

He is a champion of nothing other than wanting to destroy civil rights and perpetuate white supremacy.

[polichick]

23. Apparently it's not only Republicans who are proud of ignorance.

[L0oniX]

48. +1

[A Simple Game]

35. And Sid once more contributes what he can to the conversation.

If we are to take you literally, why do you want to have sex with Ralph?

Discuss...

[L0oniX]

49. LMFAO

[treestar]

88. And fuck the idea of the Democratic Party as "his" party

Really?

[polichick]

4. "The party has lost its soul" is a polite way to say it...

It's more accurate to say that too many party "leaders" have sold Americans, America and Planet Earth down the river.

[woo me with science]

41. +100000

It is not a lapse, but a decision.

[L0oniX]

50. That's what Hillary represents to me - "The party has lost its soul"

[Carolina]

8. Excellent and true article at the link

which was posted on AlterNet yesterday. If other posters, above, actually read the article, they would not reflexively bash Nader.

Tellingly, people forget that: Though a private citizen, Nader shepherded more bills through Congress than all but a handful of American presidents. If that sounds like an outsize claim, try refuting it. His signature wins included landmark laws on auto, food, consumer product and workplace safety; clean air and water; freedom of information, and consumer, citizen, worker and shareholder rights. In a century only Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson passed more major legislation

They also forget such history as: In the late ’70s, deregulation fever swept the nation. Carter deregulated trucks and airlines; Reagan broke up Ma Bell, ending real oversight of phone companies. But those forays paled next to the assaults of the late ’90s. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 had solid Democratic backing as did the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [8]. The communications bill authorized a massive giveaway of public airwaves to big business and ended the ban on cross ownership of media. The resultant concentration of ownership hastened the rise of hate radio and demise of local news and public affairs programming across America. As for the “modernization” of financial services, suffice to say its effect proved even more devastating. Clinton signed and still defends both bills with seeming enthusiasm.

The Telecommunications Act subverted anti-trust principles traceable to Wilson. The financial services bill gutted Glass-Steagall, FDR’s historic banking reform. You’d think such reversals would spark intra-party debate but Democrats made barely a peep. Nader was a vocal critic of both bills. Democrats, he said, were betraying their heritage and, not incidentally, undoing his life’s work. No one wanted to hear it. When Democrats noticed him again in 2000 the only question they thought to ask was, what’s got into Ralph? Such is politics in the land of the lotus eaters.


Finally, they fail to see that: Democrats today defend the triage liberalism of social service spending but limit their populism to hollow phrase mongering (fighting for working families, Main Street not Wall Street). The rank and file seem oblivious to the party’s long Wall Street tryst. Obama’s economic appointees are the most conservative of any Democratic president since Grover Cleveland but few Democrats seem to notice, or if they notice, to care

[FreedRadical]

9. The part I found even more offensive was this.

"Tea party Sen. Rand Paul is a greater champion of privacy and opponent of empire than any of his liberal colleagues, Curry writes. And the tea party as a whole has railed “loudest against big banks and corporate corruption.”

That alone should have been enough for a vote to hide. Witch I did. Jury said leave it.

On Tue Jul 29, 2014, 01:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

‘My Party Has Lost Its Soul’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307070

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

More Democrat punching from the radical left, with the help of election-spoiler Ralph Nader. This just gets really fucking old. The jury will probably rule against me, but at least I'm standing up for what I believe.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 29, 2014, 01:54 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: while I agree with the analysis of movement to the center by the democratic party under Clinton and maintained by Obama as detrimental to the progressive wing of our party, I can't stand Nader. He's not a person to be trusted. Yet the points Curry makes are true. I also think we have lost our bearings. Yes, more Independents and undecideds will/might join our voting for a Democratic candidate but the center is not where I prefer our party to be. Realistically, that's where we have to stay, in the center, if we hope to appeal to the masses. Nothing inappropriate that I can read in the OP
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I disagree with much of what it says, it is not "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate". It is a point of view which certain progressives take, and should be discussable.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Just more ratfucking. Hide it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fuck Nader, and note to alerter: From my own hard left hard core environmentalist perspective, Nader has NEVER been one of us. He's always been an opportunistic tool. I vote to leave the post for further Nader bashing.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Repeating arguments that many Democrats have already made isn't "Democrat punching"

Leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[former9thward]

10. The purpose of the jury system is not to suppress things you disagree with.

Although some do try and use it that way.

[randys1]

27. You can be sure of that, absoLUTELY

[polichick]

11. "from the radical left" lol

[L0oniX]

55. Yea that got me too.

Someone isn't very good at framing.

[cui bono]

15. "The jury will probably rule against me, but at least I'm standing up for what I believe."

Yeah right. Standing up for what you believe while hiding behind an alert.

What is it this alerter believes they are standing up for? Suppression of any discussion not to their liking? Suppression of any critical thinking perhaps? I guess the alerter believes in lock step party following. Yeah, that's what we need.

Pathetic.

And why are you voting to hide something just because you disagree with it? I take it from your post that you are yet another DUer who thinks that everything is black and white and that one can't possibly agree with anything Rand Paul says without being a "Paulbot" or a Libertarian.

[FreedRadical]

20. To answer your question.

There is vary little coming from Libertarians or tea party types that I will ever agree with. Some times, just some times, things are black and white for me. We watch these fuckers destroy our country and I should agree with some little point the make? Not going to happen. Maybe it was a bad vote. I don't know, I am not ashamed of it. I take it from your aggressive attitude you think being an asshole makes you the smartest guy in the room. Typical tea party tactics.

[cui bono]

22. I couldn't disagree with you more. You are simply showing how closed minded you are when you say

"We watch these fuckers destroy our country and I should agree with some little point the make? Not going to happen."

You are projecting when you say "Typical tea party tactics." What you just said that I quoted is Tea Party mentality at its worst. Also calling me an asshole doesn't not make your case any better. Again, it just shows how you deal with those you disagree with, and you call my post "aggressive"? Again, projecting.

Party over principle is a dangerous road to take. You might want to reconsider that stance if you care about democracy.

[zeemike]

28. It is an appeal to emotion.

Which is a Tea Party function...hate your enemy.
"Those dirty bastards" must be opposed no matter what they say, gives control to the dirty bastards,,,all the dirty bastards have to do is support something and we have to be against it...or be against it and we will support it...just like pushing a button.
There are many ways to manipulate people, and that one can be categorized as a "With us or against us".

[cui bono]

39. Yes, and also an emotional reaction rather than an intellectual one.

Instead of answering criticism with policy debate it is answered with an emotional response, presumably because they are angry that someone dared criticize a certain someone. It's so much easier than to actually break it down and see where there is reason for criticism and to realize that even if someone "on the other side" says it, it may still be valid.

And yes, I've said the same thing about apologists taking the stance of "you're either for us or against us", which no one thought was an appropriate stance when Bush said it. Remember when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush?

[woo me with science]

40. Spot on.

[L0oniX]

52. Wow ...you call a DU member an "asshole" and the jury doesn't hide. Wow.

[A Simple Game]

37. Congratulations, the first liberal bashing post I have read today, thanks for the hate.

I usually find one earlier in the day than this.

[L0oniX]

51. Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT - Thanks much to the good jury participants.

[Scootaloo]

76. Oh no! not the LEFT?! Heavens to betsy, to the bomb shelters!

The reds are coming, the reds are coming!

[xchrom]

14. du rec.

[Hotler]

16. Somebody mentioned Ralph Nader...

Everybody dog pile on Ralph Nader....

[calimary]

38. Take a number.

[LWolf]

42. Guaranteed to obliviate

this: "My party has lost it's soul."

[L0oniX]

54. The George W. Bush haters seem to hate Ralph more than Bush.

[Orsino]

66. Easier than addressing the substance of the OP. n/t

[Sheepshank]

21. I'd heard this said by a Republican against his own party

....is this another attempt at Rep=Dem?

Using the same type of dialogue isn't makeing a clear point for me. In the case of the Republican Party losing it's soul, it had to do not with money and Wall Street, but hating on women, crapping on Gov't, against health care for all, and trying to privitize social security.

Each to his own I suppose.

[RufusTFirefly]

33. The Republican Party HAS lost its soul. Your corrosive false equivalency doesn't help

The creepy, paranoid John Birchers of my youth have essentially taken over the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the liberal Republicans (believe it or not, there once was such a thing) have long since fled their party and taken over ours.

(By the way, in case you aren't old enough or don't remember, "liberal Republicans" were typically still fiscally conservative and pro-business, but they tended to oppose reckless foreign interventionism while remaining reasonably flexible on certain social issues, such as civil rights. Ironically, when it came to civil rights, southern Democrats were the principal obstacle.)

[davidpdx]

77. Good point

They talk about Democrats being out of touch. Jesus look at the other side if you really want to see people that are out of touch with reality.

[zeemike]

29. DU rec.

[Scuba]

32. "Inaction from Democrats ... has given populism to Republicans and their further-right colleagues."

Bingo!

[RufusTFirefly]

36. Populism is very scary for the PTB

Throughout history, both parties have used it strategically to galvanize a disenchanted electorate and then conveniently squashed it before it gained too much power, hoping that its voters would ultimately settle for the mainstream candidate.

A good recent example is Wisconsin, where there was a genuine movement afoot. Unfortunately, when it came time for the recall election, the state party's apparatchiks swooped down and made sure the upstarts were brought to heel.

[sabrina 1]

61. I like his ideas about a populist uprising. Bill Curry appears to agree with him that the time may

be right for a populist uprising.

In response to this mess, Nader’s book advocates a cost-saving program that would earn credibility among the voting public by championing ethics, challenging big business, standing up for small businesses and incorporating new issues such as privacy. Obama was elected with a mandate to do all of these things. His victory was a win for populism. But as an exemplar of his party’s ethos he didn’t embrace the leadership. He didn’t “believe in ideas because don’t believe in people. Obama wasted years dickering with Republicans who wished him only ill. He should have talked to the people and let them talk to the Republicans,”

Exactly, he had a huge mandate from the people but turned away from them and towards Republicans who for some unknown reason, he appeared to think were trustworthy.

Had he turned to the people, what a powerful force they would have been for him.

It is a such a tragic, missed opportunity imo. It may never present itself again in our lifetime.

[lunasun]

62. Say what? Tea party has railed “loudest against big banks and corporate corruption.”

Huh? When? I do not associate them with this kind of thought or action
What did I miss? Protested bail outs only after Obama was in not when Bush bailed outso to me, it was IMO Obama election related. Is this what the history will show? has railed “loudest against big banks and corporate corruption.” ??
OWS , but not party affiliated .
Tea party ?

[n2doc]

65. The teahadists have done NOTHING about big banks and corruption

NOTHING. Elizabeth Warren has done more to fight those issues than all the t-baggers put together times 1000. Words and mis-spelled signs mean NOTHING.

I'm sick and tired to Teahadists getting credit for this.