Pissing off the right people and making enemies

[inthebrain]

"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

I am wondering about this "Big Tent" philosophy that keeps getting metioned on this board. Today I must have seen it about six times already.

The problem with this party is it DOESN'T exclude certain people. It is a party with absolutely no tangible enemies.

Answer me this; Who has this party made an enemy of?

1) Republican voters?

2) Corporations?

3) Big media?

4) The Religious right (Falwell, Robertson, and Phelps)

You don't win elections by claiming the big tent. A party that stands for the little guy should stand to make some enemies. I, for one, think Roosevelt got that part down pat.

[mattclearing]

1. Agreed.

You are right on the money. People need to pick a side already and start fighting.

[TahitiNut]

2. Yep. Embracing the viper isn't 'love' - it's suicide.

:shrug:

[whatever4]

3. That reminds me of what I used to say to conservatives

When I used to say anything to conservatives.

I'd say, look at the company you're keeping. As opposed to judging someone by the enemies they make. One may say they don't agree with all the policies of their "side", such as a pathological need to STOP ABORTION, but they fail to realize what it says about them when they sit with lunnies on all sides.

They don't look at the company they keep. They don't realize how quickly they TOO can be on the side of "others", and that their silence on certain issues is that one large evil, the one they cannot admit to themselves.

When I used to talk to them. Can't do that very well anymore.

They say WE want to take away their religion, but in reality they seek to take FAR more than our religion from us. It's not a fair balance.

[bvar22]

4. Big Tent?

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[inthebrain]

7. Does that mean there is no longer room for Bill Clinton?

I say this not as a question meant to demean democrats but to point out a glaring problem. Bill Clinton is responsible for welfare reform (and tax breaks to corporations who hire ex welfare recipients. even if they are paid minimum wage), NAFTA and WTO.

He is responsible for advancing the agenda of the wealthy against the poor. The Chapter 11 clause in the NAFTA agreement says this:

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes an array of new corporate investment rights and protections that are unprecedented in scope and power. NAFTA allows corporations to sue the national government of a NAFTA country in secret arbitration tribunals if they feel that a regulation or government decision affects their investment in conflict with these new NAFTA rights. If a corporation wins, the taxpayers of the "losing" NAFTA nation must foot the bill. This extraordinary attack on governments' ability to regulate in the public interest is a key element of the proposed NAFTA expansion called the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

NAFTA's investment chapter (Chapter 11) contains a variety of new rights and protections for investors and investments in NAFTA countries. If a company believes that a NAFTA government has violated these new investor rights and protections, it can initiate a binding dispute resolution process for monetary damages before a trade tribunal, offering none of the basic due process or openness guarantees afforded in national courts. These so-called "investor-to-state" cases are litigated in the special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations, which are closed to public participation, observation and input. A three-person panel composed of professional arbitrators listens to arguments in the case, with powers to award an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations whose NAFTA investor privileges and rights they judge to have been impacted.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/CH__11/index.cfm

[bvar22]

8. As much as I like "the BIG Dawg",

he was a disaster for the Working American and Organized Labor.

In addition to those you mentioned above, The BIG Dog was also responsible for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which allowed a handful of VERY RICH Corporate execs to CONTROL the Media.

The momentum of Deregulation & Privitization also increased under Bill Clinton

[inthebrain]

11. You somewhat seem to get it.

[tx_dem41]

12. So, in the spirit of the OP...you are saying that Bill Clinton should be..

thrown out of the Democratic Party? Is that what you're saying?

[inthebrain]

13. Look at all the time he spends with Bush

And his reaction to Kerry after the election in terms of gay marriage.

I think Clinton himself has made and is making a case that he should be. Stop looking at who he is and and look at what he's done!!!

[inthebrain]

16. bump

[wtbymark]

5. (2) Corperate rule

That's what is destroying this nation. And ChimpCo. just cruises from one back pocket to another.

[StudentOfDarrow]

6. A real Big Tent philsophy will make enemies.

The enemies of Corporations, Big Media, and the Religious Right, would need a very Big Tent indeed to house them all. A Big Tent is not the same as an Infinite Tent. An Infinite Tent strategy would be a problem, but that's a totally different thing entirely.

[inthebrain]

10. That's not what is meant by a big tent philosophy

Republicans and Democrats alike use the "big tent" banter to appeal to voters they both screw over. Like working people!!!!

Republicans like to use it towards gays as well. It's all about controlling dissent while you turn the screws on them. Changing the party from with in in these circumstances is a bad idea. Your meaning of Big Tent Philosophy vs what the phrase is used for is a major contradiction.

Its meant in manner that if you dissagree with the party you can change it from within. Both parties use it and it's complete watered down BS. I would think that a homosexual would be nutz if he thought he could change the Republican party from within.

I cant fault poor people for feeling the same way about the Democrats after Bill Clinton signed Welfare Reform or college grads that graduated to no jobs after he signed NAFTA.

THese are things those within the party as of now should seek to rectify. Otherwise, these people that have gotten screwed will stay continue to stay away. It's the utlimate dilemma; How do you win elections, convince working people and keep the corporate cash flow.

Eventually somethings gotta break here. Republicans have corniered the market with the corporations. It's about time Democrats started pissing them off!!!!

[Copperred]

9. HERE HERE TO THAT

[LittleClarkie]

14. All of the above really

Don't forget talk radio.

They all work against us come election time.

I see them all as being against us. They say we're against people of faith. They say we're making slaves of the poor because they depend on us.

Witness the freepers who call us the DemocRATs.

The people who called me a Communist for voting for Kerry. The guy who stood at our Dem booth at State Fair and said we were the closest thing to socialism and that he was ashamed and that we stink.

If that's not making enemies, I don't know what is.

[inthebrain]

15. kick!!!