RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Wasserman writes: "A revived Democratic party that can effectively oppose Trump demands an exciting collective vision that's worth fighting for."

Alan Dershowitz at a hotel in Kiev, Ukraine, in 2011. (photo: Sergei Chuzavkov/AP)
Alan Dershowitz at a hotel in Kiev, Ukraine, in 2011. (photo: Sergei Chuzavkov/AP)

57 Unpatriotic Ways the Corp/Dems Have Enthroned Trumputin

By Harvey "Sluggo" Wasserman, Reader Supported News

04 July 18


s we celebrate our nation’s birth, and organize to once again overthrow an illegitimate tyrant, we might pity Trump’s classic liberal enabler, Al Dershowitz.

The pitiful self-promoting professor is being horribly snubbed by his fellow liberal neighbors on Martha’s Vineyard because he now supports Trump.

The ordeal must be every bit as painful as being separated from one’s children at the Mexican border.

But all whining aside, it should be clear that The Donald’s primary enablers (alongside his mob boss, Vladimir Putin) have been self-proclaimed “liberals” far more important than Dershowitz – namely Nancy Pelosi and her Corporate Democrats.

Their corruption and incompetence got him into the White House in the first place. And he can’t continue to rule without them.

Let’s count a mere 57 of the ways:

1) Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and the Corporate Democrats are nearly all multi-millionaires, locked into the corporate oligarchy;

2) Hillary Clinton lumped all us social democrats into that “basket of deplorables”;

3) While banning young, charismatic, progressive blood from the party, Pelosi (78) is clearly more concerned with her personal retirement than overcoming Trump’s fascist putsch;

4) Like Dershowitz, the Corp/Dem elite is far more comfortable with Trump in the White House than with Bernie Sanders, whose millions of energized social-democratic activists held the key to winning the 2016 election, had Hillary Clinton not trashed them;

5) The Corp/Dem cabal offers no alternative vision (can anyone tell us exactly what the Democratic Party stands for?) pumping out endless fundraising emails complaining about Trump, but providing zero leadership toward a just, diverse, eco-Solartopian world that might sustain a focused, longterm grass-roots movement;

6) As demonstrated by Matt Taibbi and others, the Corp/Dem Party has become a hollow fundraising scam, choosing candidates based on their cash flow, relying on fear of Trump to rake in the dough while failing to effectively oppose him;

7) When Trump attacked Rep. Maxine Waters with racist anti-feminist bigotry, Pelosi said little;

8) But when Maxine promised to fight back, Pelosi attacked HER for being “uncivil”;

9) The Corp/Dems have issued no major public statements of matching intensity denouncing the death threats being leveled at Maxine as they are being encouraged by Trump (“Be careful what you wish for, Max”);

Regarding Putin:

10) Trump’s multiple bankruptcies reflect an infamous lack of business ability, managerial competence, and moral stature;

11) Trump’s core financial base has depended since the 1980s on his money-laundering cash for the Russian mob, as amply documented by Republican investigator David Cay Johnston among others;

12) But the Corp/Dems and mainstream media have almost completely ignored Trump’s mob roots, even as they extend through his New York upbringing and into his ruble-based cash flow;

13) This includes Trump’s being raised by his overtly racist slumlord father Fred, a proud KKK supporter who was memorialized as a vicious bigot by the legendary folk singer Woody Guthrie;

14) As a New York slumlord and shady builder, according to Johnston, Fred Trump was enmeshed with at least two major mob families, without whom he could not have poured concrete or built his hell-hole tenements, a reality studiously ignored by the Corp/Dems;

15) Corp/Dems have ignored the fact that Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement was hastened by his son’s job as a rare American banker still willing to do business with the perennially bankrupt Donald;

Stolen Elections:

16) While Corp/Dems endlessly obsess on likely collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and desperately hang on every snippet from Mueller, they ignore Trump’s Russian mob connections dating back to the 1980s, through which Putin owned him FINANCIALLY, even aside from any blackmail videos or the details of their 2016 mega-fraud;

17) While failing to raise that reality, the Corp/Dems also ignore the fact that no matter what role the Russians may have played in it, the 2016 election was, in fact, stolen by homegrown GOP operatives, cycling back most importantly to 2000 and 2004;

17) Al Gore won the 2000 election by more than 500,000 popular votes nationwide, but has never publicly confronted the fact that he actually “lost” the presidency to Florida Governor Jeb Bush, brother of the candidate Shrub, setting a devastating precedent for Corp/Dem acquiescence to domestically stolen elections;

18) Gov. Jeb used a computer program called ChoicePoint (as revealed by Greg Palast) to strip Florida registration rolls of more than 90,000 citizens, nearly all of them black and Hispanic, in an election allegedly decided by 537 votes;

19) Gore has never publicly faced this massive Jim Crow disenfranchisement, or campaigned to protect the voter rolls in ensuing elections (like the one upcoming in 2018);

20) John Kerry has never publicly faced the stripping of some 300,000 citizens from voter rolls in Ohio, 2004 (where Bush allegedly won by 118,775);

21) Hillary Clinton has never publicly contested the 2016 vote theft perpetrated by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, using a CrossCheck program that stripped a million or more voters from the key Electoral College states that put Trump in the White House;

22) In 2000, 2004 and 2016, easily hackable electronic voting machines (as revealed by Bev Harris) helped flip votes from Gore and Kerry to Bush in Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, and elsewhere – and from Clinton to Trump in Wisconsin and Michigan 2016, etc. – with zero protest from the Corp/Dems;

23) These stripped voter rolls and rigged voting machines flipped as many as six US Senate seats in 2014 and 2016, giving Republicans control of the Senate, Supreme Court, etc., with no word from the Corp/Dems;

24) These same machines helped flip a thousand federal, state, and local elections to the GOP during the eight years of the Obama presidency, without a peep from the Corp/Dems;

24) In Florida 2000, Gore filed a limited recount demand when a full-state recount might have made the difference;

25) After Ohio 2004, Kerry’s Corp/Dems did nothing to help a successful federal court filing by Attorney Bob Fitrakis and others for a full state-wide recount (I was a plaintiff in this case);

26) When confronted with a federal court settlement demanding all ballot records from the Ohio 2004 presidential election, 56 of Ohio’s 88 counties claimed their records were (illegally) missing, with no protest from the Corp/Dems (and no criminal prosecution of any kind);

27) When Green candidate Jill Stein won a court decision green-lighting a recount for Michigan 2016, where Trump allegedly won by 10,000 votes, but more than 70,000 came in with no presidential preference (primarily in Detroit and Flint), Hillary Clinton’s lawyers killed that recount, and let Trump walk away with that state’s electoral votes;

28) When Green attorneys, including Fitrakis, found massive irregularities in Wisconsin 2016, including an illegal refusal to make public the source coding for electronic voting machines, Clinton and her Corp/Dems ignored the proceedings and again let Trump walk away with that state’s electoral votes;

29) In addition to Michigan and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida’s electoral votes could have denied Trump the presidency, but Clinton’s Corp/Dems refused to support any meaningful investigations or legal actions where voter registrations were stripped and electronic ballot flipping was rampant;

30) When the Congressional Black Caucus united in January 2001 in Constitutional opposition to seating Florida’s Electoral College delegation, then-Vice President Al Gore blocked the challenge and strong-armed the Senate into killing any meaningful investigation of how Florida’s electoral votes – and thus the presidency – were stolen;

31) In the 18 years since his winning the popular vote in 2000, Gore has never helped organize, launch or fund (he is a multi-multi-millionaire) an effective public campaign to abolish the Electoral College;

32) Some 200,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida 2000, and Gore lost New Hampshire and his home state of Tennessee (either could have given him the presidency) but the Corp/Dems still rant at consumer advocate Ralph Nader for daring to run;

33) Gore repeatedly refused Nader’s invitations to meet during the 2000 campaign;

34) As a US senator, Gore had voted to approve Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court, for which Thomas “repaid” him by deciding the infamous 5-4 Bush v. Gore suit that stopped the Florida 2000 recount;

35) Using Dark Money from the Koch Brothers, GOP activists outfoxed the Corp/Dems during 2010’s redistricting process and gerrymandered a structural margin in the Congress and statehouses that the Corp/Dems still may be unable to overcome;

36) In 2018, along with the Corp/Dems’ lack of leadership and vision, the Republicans still have the tools to steal most federal, state and local elections, essentially unopposed;

37) Thanks in part to Gore’s inaction, the Corp/Dems have failed to eliminate the Electoral College, which could guarantee Trumputin’s return to office in 2020;

And at the economic roots:

38) In the mid-1980s, as Trump began laundering Russian mob money, Bill and Hillary Clinton sold the Democratic Party to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street;

38) The Clintons’ “New Democrats” escalated the Drug War, trashed the poor, gutted Wall Street regulations, perpetrated NAFTA, expanded the death penalty, launched a racist attack against rapper Sister Soulja, imposed “three strikes and you’re out,” bombed Yugoslavia over the objections of local nonviolent activists, and more;

39) The Clintons inherited two of history’s hugest financial windfalls – the end of the Cold War and the computer revolution – but rather than pursue social justice, they accelerated the shift of wealth from the general population to the super-rich, whose ranks they soon joined;

40) Through eight years in office, the Clintons failed to enact a single lasting program to benefit America’s working/middle class, helping set the stage for Trump’s fake populism (they did, however, spark a national debate on oral sex);

41) Nearly all Congressional Dems supported George W. Bush’s repressive Patriot Act and his destabilizing attack on Iraq;

42) Despite two full terms in office, except for Obamacare, Barack Obama enacted no major lasting programs to benefit America’s working/middle class, thus accelerating the gap between rich and the rest of us, and further setting the stage for Trump’s fake populism;

43) BY CONTRAST: Facing a massive bank-based financial crisis in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt confronted the banks, won meaningful reforms, and enacted New Deal social programs that built a grassroots Democratic Party base that lasted a generation;

44) Facing a massive bank-based financial crisis in 2009, Barack Obama handed the bankers (who, thanks to the Clintons, now owned the Democratic Party) a fake money bailout in the range of $7,000,000,000,000, demanded no meaningful reforms, massively accelerated the gap between the rich and the rest of us, and enacted (except for Obamacare) no significant programs to aid the American working/middle class, thus prompting the formation of the Tea Party, and paving the way for Trump’s fake populism;

45) While kinda/sorta withdrawing from Iraq, Obama prolonged our worthless war in Afghanistan’s “Graveyard of Empires,” killing thousands and wasting trillions, helping to pave the way for Trump’s fake populism;

46) Primarily to protect the petro-dollar, Obama and Secretary of State Clinton assaulted Libya, slaughtered its Prime Minister, and further destabilized North Africa and the Middle East across to Afghanistan, pushing millions into a mass migration that’s now destabilized much of Europe;

47) As America’s first African-American president, Obama did little for communities of color, heightening economic tensions and paving the way for Trump’s manipulative bigotry;

48) While establishing the Dreamer Program, Obama perpetrated mass deportations, paving the way for Trump’s own horrific assault on the Hispanic community;

49) Constitutional lawyer Obama’s illegal attacks on whistleblowers paved the way for Trump’s repressive apparatus today;

50) Despite his green rhetoric, Obama’s “all of the above” energy policies slowed the transition to a 100% renewable-based Solartopian energy supply that could have provided jobs for millions more Americans while accelerating the fight against climate change;

51) Despite gargantuan losses sustained by the nuke power industry, and its role as a major source for global warming, Obama’s frail support for renewables, and his $8.3 billion guaranteed federal loan to America’s last reactor project – at Vogtle, Georgia – set the foundation for Trump’s “I love coal and nukes” bailouts to come;

52) Obama eventually opposed the Dakota Pipeline, but his sluggish response to the green anti-fossil/nuke resistance slowed the movement against global warming;

53) Obama and Hillary’s support for fracking has made it easy for Trump to do the same;

54) Support for massive nuke bailouts by Corp/Dems like New York governor Andrew Cuomo and Ohio representatives Marcia Fudge, Marcy Kaptur, and Tim Ryan continue to let dying, obsolete, money-losing nuke reactors pollute the planet, warm the atmosphere, and cripple economic growth and job production;

In 2018:

55) Despite continued bitterness over how Bernie Sanders and the millions of (mostly young) social democrats who rallied behind him got shafted, the Corp/Dems continue to resist meaningful reform of the party and nation;

56) Victorious young progressives like New York’s Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez offer hope for a revived Democratic Party run by energetic young social democrats with a blue-green vision and the legs to get there;

57) But nothing real can happen until the corrupt, comatose Clinton-Gore-Kerry-Pelosi-Schumer-Cuomo Corp/Dems wake up or move over.

There is of course much more.

But above all, a revived Democratic party that can effectively oppose Trump demands an exciting collective vision that’s worth fighting for.

In this new century, the Corp/Dems have lost the presidency they legitimately won three times and thrown away a thousand other elected offices. They still have done nothing to confront the stripping of the voter rolls, flipping of electronic voting machines, machinations of the Electoral College. They perform poorly in office and offer zero real vision that might excite an electorate desperate to remove Trump, but lacking a real opposition party with which to do it.

In a world dominated by millionaires and billionaires, where elections have devolved to “One Dollar, One Vote,” the Corp/Dems offer no hope.

So now it’s up to a grassroots movement of rising green social democrats.

To overthrow Trump we must first overcome the old Corp/Dem hacks.

Let’s DO IT!!!

Harvey Wasserman hosts the California Solartopia Show on KPFK-Pacifica Los Angeles 90.7FM and the Green Power & Wellness Show on His America at the Brink of Rebirth: The Life & Death Spiral of US History, from Deganawidah to The Donald is at, along with Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+68 # librarian1984 2018-07-04 10:12
THANK YOU! I feel like I just took a cleansing cool shower.

I believe all 57, and so strongly in #39, 43 and 55 I almost cried to see them in print.

Let's not forget that if the GOP gains control of ONE MORE state government they have the wherewithal to convene a constitutional conference. Given their radicalism, does anyone doubt they'll do it?

But as bad as Trump and the GOP are, we don't stand a chance against them until we clean our own House (and Senate).

Happy July 4th, everybody.
0 # longingfortruth 2018-07-06 15:32
Time for critical thinking skills! I really regret all the thumbs up I gave on this thread. It felt so good to have my anger, resentment and idealism validated that I took way too long so see what's going on. All these articulate posts about Bernie and the DNC are just to gain our trust. Then the posts start piling on generalizations and DEM/GOP false equivalency to make us feel hopeless and helpless. At this point in the Trump presidency anyone encouraging you not to vote or to vote for a third party is on someone's payroll. I don't know if it is the NRA's, Putin's, Kochs', Olins, or Scaife's payroll... but it is someone who wants to kill democracy.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-06 15:45
longingfortruth : I'm with you. Well said.
+4 # Benign Observer 2018-07-06 16:26
You guys DID read the title, right? I think the assumption is that the party should try to correct some of these 57 things. You seem to have a whole different take on it..

You say you want the Dems to win but they've been losing a lot and for years. I don't know if you remember the last presidential election, but it was a disaster -- and since that humiliating loss the party leadership has stayed the same and the agenda has stayed the same. You know that's irrational, right?

You say you want to defeat Trump in 2020, but polling shows he would still win if the election were held today, and the lead generic Democrats had is almost gone. Yet you insist anyone who wants to improve the party is trying to help Trump and you frequently bash the guy who can beat him.

So how exactly is that going to start us winning? How are WE the 'bad' progressives?

We want to win. We're just not prepared to buy your bs. Those are two very different things.
0 # longingfortruth 2018-07-06 17:27
The last election showed us not to trust the polls. It's all about turnout. The time for idealism is in the primaries. This fall anyone not voting for Democrats or Independents who will caucus with the Democrats is voting for Trump. There are more Democrats than Republicans that is the reason for divide and conquer tactics.
Beware of those pushing apathy after gaining your trust by praising Bernie, trashing the DNC and crying out for reform. I once saw Bill O'Reilly use the same technique (albeit not a skillfully as is done here)to sell his book on TV. A book is a short con. Apathy is the long con.
My father's motto was, "nil desperandum".
My mother's was, "never lose by default."
0 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 19:17
So now 'we' don't trust polls, as a rule? Because I still hear a lot of them. That sort of makes me think you're GOP. You know, the whole twisted logic-don't trust science-thing. Is that you?

Well we're not even through the primaries yet so why are you telling us to capitulate already? Doesn't seem very idealistic of you, yet it's in our allotted window for optimism. Does not compute.

And no one here seems apathetic. Who are you talking about?

Do we agree the party should stay out of the primaries and support whoever wins the primary?

So you're saying anybody who calls for reform of the party is .. what, exactly? Trying to win? Trying to influence our representatives ? Bill O'Reilly's friend?

Have you considered maybe they want the party to be better so they can win? You DO realize these same people using these sane tactics have lost a thousand seats, right?
-3 # JCM 2018-07-06 21:28
I am happy to hear from another who can see through all the deceit.
0 # librarian1984 2018-07-07 10:48
Yeah, this reminds me of the tagteaming rocback used to do with his couple of colleagues.

He/she/it was better at it.
0 # chalgato 2018-07-17 19:47
Quoting longingfortruth:
The last election showed us not to trust the polls. "

The 2016 General Election exit polls were correct, 7 million votes were tossed and the difference that turned up line up proportionally to the voters whose votes were tossed for appearing on the criminally fraudulent list of "double voters"

Kris Kobach sold Interstate Crosscheck to swing states that purported to be double voters but were simply lists of peope with the same first and last name regarless of different birthdays, SSN, middle initial

The list almost entirely consisted of Blacks. Mexicans, and Asians, the poor, students and elderly were also targeted, ACLU is taking this case to court piece by piece. You should pay attention, you may find those missing votes.
+1 # JCM 2018-07-06 17:45
You told me that you prefer rump to Hillary. That's like saying you want more pollution, more financial theft. You want the EPA to be destroyed. The state department crushed, more tariffs, tear down our allies, build up putin. Hate immigrants, remove millions of people from healthcare, try to wipe out the Safety Net. Bring back pre-existing conditions. For profit universities that rip off student (Like Trump University), think that dictators are great while demeaning our friends. And not believing in Climate Change.
One thing we agree on – I’m just not prepared to buy your bs.
+2 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 16:28
You know what I notice? You guys have really heated up the abuse since Ocasio-Cortez won.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

Come on, JCM, prove you're a real progressive. Say something nice about Bernie.
0 # JCM 2018-07-06 17:48
No, I think she's great. It was the supreme court. What do you have to say about that.
-1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 19:19
Say something nice about Bernie.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-07 17:15
Great guy and a lot of great ideas. Saw him in Atlanta.
+3 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 16:13
Here's a thought: we're not in a presidential election cycle. We're not even in an election. We're in primary season.

I listened to many people here tell us to hold our nose, vote for Hillary, and then after the election we'd 'hold the party's feet to the fire'.

So was that all bullshit? When exactly does the feet-fire thing happen?

Imagine if EVERY person on the DP's mailing list called or wrote their representatives and said, I'm not voting for you if you don't move left. Even -- and this is key -- even if you will, ultimately, vote for them.

Imagine if no one sent them money for a few months, and said, I'm not sending you money unless you work with Bernie and stop interfering in the primaries. Even if you will, ultimately, vote D.

Do you see what I'm saying? This is a good time to pressure them, particularly when Ocasio-Cortez's victory has them so shaken.

Unless you don't WANT them to reform which, reading the list above, would be insane, right? But that seems to be what a few people here want.

So not only do are you bullying us to vote for ANY Dem, according to you we also have to be quiet and not complain, and we can't ask for anything, or expect the party to change.

I'd question the values of anyone who advocated for such a plan IF THEY WERE WINNING. But since you're advocating we make NO demands EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE LOSING like the Cubs, I also have to question your intelligence or your motives, Which one is it?
-5 # JCM 2018-07-06 17:56
More BS. The simple explanation for all this BS is that you would still rather have rump instead of Hillary. Like longingfortruth said, "At this point in the Trump presidency anyone encouraging you not to vote or to vote for a third party is on someone's payroll"
Fitting name for this website: longingfortruth

By the way see my comment to BO above when it gets printed. You fit right in there.
+3 # lfeuille 2018-07-07 01:19
Why do you insist on restricting the choices to just Trump or Hillary. Trump is worse but neither one is good enough. That particular fight is done. It won't be repeated. We have to reject both Trumpism and the corporate Dems in order make any progress. Defending Hillary because you hate Trump is just stupid. And defending Trump because you hate Hillary is worse because he is the one that won and the one that is causing disasters with everything he does right now. Bernie and his "political revolution" are the future.

I intent to vote for Bernie in every presidential election from now on even if he isn't running. And if he dies before being elected and before I do I'll switch to Ben Jealous or some other Berniecrat. I refuse to choose, metaphorically or actually, between Trump and Hillary.
-3 # JCM 2018-07-07 11:58
I think longingfortruth said it very well, "At this point in the Trump presidency anyone encouraging you not to vote or to vote for a third party is on someone's payroll." Enough said.
+2 # librarian1984 2018-07-07 15:25
Do you guys sit in adjoining cubicles?

You know you're on the wrong side -- of history and morality. You're doing things and saying things for people who don't give a fig about you or anyone you care about, who will throw you under the bus in a heartbeat. The things they want you to say hurt us, all of us.

Maybe you're desperate for a job, maybe you're a true believer. Either way you're wrong. Someday you'll see that. So why not see the light now, before you do more harm?

Consider telling the truth. Help us take them down. Think about it, won't you?
0 # DavidtheLiberal 2018-07-30 09:50
This piece SCREAMS for references justifying the things being said here.
+49 # dotlady 2018-07-04 10:29
Put together into a list like this, it sure looks like -collusion! A sickening vista of
passivity on the part of the Democrats, almost resignation. These top Democrats SHOULD resign. They are not offering any lifelines of hope. Nor of ethics, nor of a logical way to try to get out of this mess.
My hope is also in the grassroots taking persistent, focused actions. Not going to any fireworks of hypocrisy tonight.
+12 # lfeuille 2018-07-04 10:39
Al Dershowitz cannot really be called a "liberal". He has been a reationary for several decades now even before 911, but otherwise most of this is true though some of it was due to an inablity to predict how things would play out rather than any intent to bolster the right wing.
+22 # JCM 2018-07-04 10:54
“Despite two full terms in office, except for Obamacare, Barack Obama enacted no major lasting programs to benefit America’s working/middle class, thus accelerating the gap between rich and the rest of us, and further setting the stage for Trump’s fake populism;”
Roosevelt had a supermajority in both houses which gave him the ability to get the legislation he wanted passed. Contrary to what many think, Obama never, had or at most a short time, a usable super majority. See, if you don’t believe me:
The republicans made it their agenda to oppose Obama even at the detriment of the country. Harvey, being the good Democrat you are, you criticize Obama over all the opposition he had from the republicans. We can now only imagine what kind of president he would have been if he had a Congress like FDR’s. I do have plenty of things to criticize Obama for but I would rather spend the time criticizing the destroyers of Democracy, the republicans.
Additionally, if the Democrats who voted for him in 2008 came out and voted in 2010 to help him overcome the republicans, we wouldn’t be in this nightmare now. He wasn’t everything we wanted (even with all the opposition) but he was a lot better than what we have now. He was our president. We let him down.
+30 # economagic 2018-07-04 12:04
The problem with Obama was not that he was unable to win, but that he was unwilling to try.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-06 15:48
It never did seem like he really fought back. However, much of the blame does go to the people who supported him in 2008 and didn’t return in 2010. We have to learn that we must support the Democratic candidate that can win to keep the republicans from power. The reality now is that the republicans have beat us in regards to the supreme court so no matter if the Dems got back all three houses getting any leftwards legislation through the supreme court might be near impossible. That is the consequence of the decisions people made during the last election.
+3 # lfeuille 2018-07-07 01:23
They didn't return BECAUSE he didn't try. Politicians can't realistically expect people to keep voting for them for ever when they so obviously do not even try.
+1 # JCM 2018-07-07 12:14
It's ridiculous to say Obama didn't try. He enrolled millions more people into healthcare and as flawed as it was it gave people no more pre-existing conditions, can’t be forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills, kept your children in your policy until 26 and many more. Also made the clean air act, higher mileage standards for cars, renewable energy grants, LGBT rights, etc. And that was with extreme republican opposition. But because he didn't do or say or act the way you wanted you stopped your support even through that empowered the republican’s opposition. Sometimes the Democrats can be their own best enemy.
+33 # boredlion 2018-07-04 10:59
An excellent catalog of failures and travesties ! Illustrating how we got into this hog-wallow of oligarchical greed- and power-mongering . Thanks, Harvey !
+54 # Jim Rocket 2018-07-04 11:08
Years ago Ralph Nader said that the Dems take money from the same people as the Republicans but not as much so they're effectively paid to be second place.

I find their complacency in the face of Republican electoral cheating to be absolutely inexplicable... unless they really are paid to be second place.
-15 # ddd-rrr 2018-07-04 11:08
Methinks that Harvey Wasserman doth sound like "a left-wing version of Limbaugh".
The LAST thing we need to do on the left is to initiate a "civil war" among our various
segments and interest-groups . Instead, we should work together to achieve what is
needed. We are in sufficient agreement among ourselves now to work together to
accomplish the removal of the "orange clown" in 2020 (if not sooner, by legal action),
and to elect more appropriate majorities in Congress (ones which will service people's
needs instead of their own).

The answer is a UNITED Democratic Party, NOT a divided one! Later, we can try
to sort out our differences -- but the point is to avoid the usual Democratic
tendency to "seize failure from the mouth of success"!

Let’s keep our eyes on the prizes -- NOT on our (relatively minor) differences!
+20 # economagic 2018-07-04 12:24
Quoting ddd-rrr:

The answer is a UNITED Democratic Party, NOT a divided one! Later, we can try
to sort out our differences. . . .

Let’s keep our eyes on the prizes -- NOT on our (relatively minor) differences!

We've been tryin' that fer nearly 40 years, and how's it been workin' fer ya? Apparently your differences with the corporate Dems are not merely smaller than mine but different in kind.

I have seen no evidence in AT LEAST the past 20 years that the prizes sought by the Democratic misleadership have not included ANY of those sought by virtually all "progressives" and mentioned above by Mr. Wasserman.

After the defeats of Humphrey in 1968 and McGovern in 1972, those misleaders were so horrified that they decided they really WERE too far to the left, and the couple of mildly leftist candidates they have put forward since then have been staggeringly unconvincing to anyone.

Humphrey was something of an old-line progressive, but no person associated with Lyndon Johnson could have won even without Nixon's traitorous actions. I took 1972 off for good reasons I will never regret, but the ongoing blind support of the Democratic party for a war that most people understood as unwinnable and many saw as immoral undermined the positions of their candidate as much or more than had Nixon's 4 years earlier. And of course Nixon had his fingers in McGovern's nomination as well.
+4 # JCM 2018-07-04 13:54
There is a time for opposition and a time to vote. In between elections is the time to improve the party but when it is time to vote we must stand together and vote for the primary candidate. To do otherwise might give us an extreme democracy destroyer beholden to putin that could stack the supreme court making it impossible to keep decent legislation.
+15 # librarian1984 2018-07-04 15:40
It's between elections. What are you doing to improve them? Telling us to vote for anyone with a 'D'? How does that convince them to reform?

It's between elections. What is the party doing to improve? Cheating progressives, badmouthing Ocasio-Cortez, keeping the same clueless leaders and asinine strategies?

This list is not one or two things -- these are numerous and catastrophic longterm problems, but you seem perfectly content to stand by inept, corrupt charlatans and tell US to lower the bar.

Well count me out. Steny Hoyer needs to earn my trust back. Tom Perez needs to flush the Clintons' influence. Pelosi needs to acknowledge that Democrats DO want change. Or, better yet, the whole lot of them need to retire. I notice THEY never sacrifice to improve OUR lives.

The party needs to refuse corporate money, adopt a progressive agenda, get rid of superdelegates, stop cheating and open their primaries.

If they make moves to end corruption they might get my vote. But nothing you can say convinces me to support corporatists and warmongers.
-7 # JCM 2018-07-04 20:42
You already supported "corporatists and warmongers" and also democracy destroyers and a putin disciple.
So, now let’s compare your comments to those who support the republicans on websites, also known as trolls. Starting with republican trolls, how would they influence the liberals and progressives on the website? Do you think they would come to a liberal website and insinuate themselves by saying we must not vote for the primary Democrat candidate because she is so awful and we must help improve the democrats by giving them a lesson? Would they give all kinds of reasons not to vote for her, some true and some extremely exaggerated, like she would start WW3? They would call other people trolls to maybe deflect from them being trolls. The trolls since they are making money by writing on said website will probably have something to say on nearly every article. They would say that the Democrats have to work harder for their trust before they would ever vote for them, this gives them a sense of honesty, all the while turning people away from a candidate who would not have in any way tried to destroy our government and our relations with our allies and act at all in favor of putin.
Continue below:
+4 # librarian1984 2018-07-05 09:51
I could overanalyze every motive here, personal or political, but I'm not interested in who says what to whom for how many cookies. That's FlufferNutter's bailiwick.

We don't know who anyone is or why they say what they say. Maybe there's a Dem whose dog got run over by a Latvian and they come on to demonize Latvians. Doesn't matter.

All we can do is evaluate the words each time. The most we can hope for or demand on this medium are fragile trusts developed over time, but even those are suspect.

I understand your point but you're jumping down the rabbithole. I don't care if there are Russians here, or Trump supporters. I can hear their ideas and not freak out. Maybe I'll learn something or we'll get to understand each other better. How is that bad?

There's undoubtedly Hillary trolls too, remnants of Correct the Record, as well as true believers. I don't care. Maybe we'll convince them to support Sanders next time.

There are probably intel moles, since they seem to have a budget that allows any inane idea to bloom, and just think how threatening we are, a bunch of geriatrics spouting off about liberty and freedom. But maybe we'll convince one to whistleblow.

I call YOU and Fluffer trolls not because of ideology but because you rarely contribute. I don't care where you come from or why, only that you incite arguments and repeat yourselves relentlessly -- more an assault on propriety, taste and manners than an object of fear.
+2 # RLF 2018-07-06 06:13
Republicans held their nose and voted for the big Cheeto. Is that what we want in our party? No thinking just accept what you're given. Problem is I think and I'll not be fooled!
-5 # JCM 2018-07-06 11:30
Do you think the republicans are good for the country? Do you think the democrats would be increasing pollution. Reducing regs against theft. Trying to destroy healthcare and the Safety Net. Do you think the supreme court if worth fighting for? I do, that's why I do everything I can to keep republican from power.
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 12:04
Yes, based on Obama and Clinton's rhetoric, actions and secret speeches, and on recent votes by the Democrats in Congress, I DO think they would be just as militaristic and just as friendly to corporate interests.

That is exactly the point.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-06 15:36
Ridiculous, The Dems and Obama created the clean air act, the consumer protection agency, added millions to healthcare. The republicans canceled the clean air act(or are trying too) destroying the EPA, destroying the consumer protection agency, trying to remove people from healthcare and go back to preexisting conditions, and on and on of destruction. We can't win back the senate when we splinter our vote. Unless that's what you want.
+5 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 16:31
I'm perfectly willing to unite behind Bernie.

You said you voted for him so I'm sure we're in agreement. Let's do it!!!
-4 # JCM 2018-07-06 18:14
I appreciate that but what would happen if he ran with a 3rd party. The election would have a Dem, Bernie and a republican. As great as Bernie is he might even get the majority of Democratic votes. Some votes might be from dump rump people and some others like libertarians. Most of the votes would come from people who generally vote for Dems. But that may not take away enough votes from rump. So, who wins. Bernie and the Dems split the votes in some way and the repubs win. I hope that Bernie doesn’t do that, and he knows enough to realize he’d probably give the republicans a win. He wouldn’t take the chance.
Yes, maybe in that case I would vote for Bernie if he had poll numbers to show a chance of winning. If neither Bernie or the Dem had the numbers to win, I’d vote for Bernie.
Then I’d think about leaving the country.
+3 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 19:22
"I'd vote for Bernie. Then I'd think about leaving the country."

Thank you for your honesty.

It's been fun today, with the quick posting. Like the old days.
+3 # tedrey 2018-07-06 23:12
You didn't answer her question. Would you vote for Bernie if the DNC let him run as a Democrat? No thrd party, no vote splitting, just the Democratic Party behind Bernie his progressives, and his platform. Why or why not? That's the only way we posters you claim to want Trump see to *defeat* Trump, who we detest also. Please answer librarian's (and my) question.
-1 # JCM 2018-07-07 12:19
Of course I'd vote for Bernie and Elizabeth and maybe Maxine. Cortez is really sharp, I hope to see her around for a long time.
+4 # lfeuille 2018-07-07 01:38
I actually think he could win in that situation. A lot of Dems that worked on his last campaign would switch for him. And he could pick off many of the minority of Trump voters who are not rabid racists and voted Dem in the past. Those are the ones that put Trump over the top and are now seriously questioning their choice. It would be much easier as a Democrat though.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-07 12:21
Possibly, but I don't think he would run in a third party because it would be to much a gamble that could give it to rump.
+2 # lfeuille 2018-07-07 01:33
It would be impossible for them to be a friendly to corporate interests. The Trump administration has absoluted all environmental regulation. No Dem. would have the nerve to do that. This is another example of exaggeration in equating corporate Dems with Trump. They are not exactly the same and anyone who pays attention knows that. But it is not necessary to paint them as equally bad in order to reject both. But false equivalence in the face of the total disaster on all fronts of the Trump administration just weakens the case.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-07 12:23
The Dems don't come close to total disaster. I have explained that many times.
+2 # NAVYVET 2018-07-07 13:15
Actually I do think Clinton might have packed the court with arch-conservati ves, destroyed healthcare via neglect, and avoided facing the critical environmental issues. As for the safety net, Bill Clinton took care of its destruction. You are somewhat behind the times, I fear. The Dems AND Repubs have been destroying our country for 45 years, ever since ALEC and its oil-igarchs took over.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-07 16:34
Bill Clinton: Ruth Bader Ginsburg & Stephen Breyer. Not exactly arch-conservati ves. Give me one quote from Hillary that sounds like she would bring in an arch-conservati ve.
Bill did mess up welfare but Hilary created CHIP.
Most of the destruction of our country started with Reagan's VOODOO or trickledown economics. The conservatives complained that the Democrats redistributed wealth from top down and since Reagan it has gone from bottom up. This has taken wealth out of the economy giving us one of the highest levels of inequality. We now have about one hundred and forty million people at or below the poverty line (this is beyond disgraceful). This did not happen when the Dems were in control. If the Dems had a super majority I believe they would create legislation to help the middle class and poor. Unfortunately, the republicans will oppose any legislation that would help anybody but the wealthiest.
-5 # JCM 2018-07-04 20:44
Part Two

No matter how bad the Dems candidate was she wouldn’t have come close to the destruction we have now. But the troll will spend much of its time trying to make you think that the destruction would be even worse, even when we see before our very eyes what is happening (don’t believe your lying eyes). When confronted with the stacking of the supreme court and the damage that will do to everything progressive and remotely democratic, it doesn’t change anything in what they say. Teach those Dems a lesson they say.
Really, how could anything be worse than what is happening now in our country?
Now we’ll take a look at what you librarian1984 say or do in so many of your comments. To make it easy for myself you do everything a troll would do stated above. If looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck it is a troll. Like I said before, take your rubles and go home. And take some of your friends here with you too.
To everybody else, your vote makes a big difference. Vote for every primary Democratic candidate you can. Don’t give the republicans a chance.
+6 # librarian1984 2018-07-05 10:21
The DCCC sabotages progressives at the same time they've empowered blue dogs.

While the base wants a move to the left, our feckless leaders have decided to go the opposite way. They're propping up historic numbers of ex-intel, ex-military, even ex-GOP. Some DNC-backed candidates oppose abortion and gun control, support Trump's wall, even voted for him and the establishment would rather support THEM than progressives.

That's bad enough, but in addition they are SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL during primaries! Perez promised he would -- but just endorsed Cuomo over Nixon in NY. On a tape of Steny Hoyer we hear him tell a progressive he wants him out of the race because the DCCC already selected a candidate -- BEFORE ONE VOTE WAS CAST.

But you won't even discuss party reform. All you ever do is harangue US to vote for whatever lump has a 'D' next to its name. That's how we got DINOs Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly and Heidi Heitkamp, who will all vote for Trump's SCOTUS.

If the establishment gets its way there'll be MORE DINOs next term, even though the base wants to move left.

We're not asking for favors. We ARE demanding fair primaries and support if they win.

The DP wants our energy. They want our votes. They want our money. But they refuse to represent us, or even hear us. They're corrupt and they're losers. THEY LOSE ELECTIONS.

I'm not participating in the destruction of the party, or by the party, anymore. And I'm not the only one.
-6 # JCM 2018-07-05 16:13
Empty drivel that led to the worse mistake in our history. And you keep going with your harangue of never vote for establishment Dems, good for primaries, very bad for elections when the establishment Dem is the only Dem that can win. What that attitude gave us is the worst and most destructive president. Only a person intent on harming the Dems and ultimately harm this country would still carry the same tune you and your friends are singing.
Are you comfortable with rump as president or maybe Hillary doesn’t look so bad now in comparison?
+3 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 05:29
Why won't you address the corruption in the party? THAT is what keeps many of us from supporting them.

I've voted LOTE. I was a good soldier. But when does the party return the favor? All Pelosi thinks about is being Speaker again, not about what voters want, or how the party can win.

I didn't come to this position easily or quickly, but now that we're here I'm not backing down. THIS is the time to reform the party.

We're in primary season, not an election, so this is the best possible time to confront these issues, yet you still want us to give up the fight without any concessions from the party, and despite all the evidence they're cheating us. Why is that?

I've said this numerous times but you won't hear it: progressives did NOT give US Trump. The DP had control of Congress for decades before Bill Clinton took us down Neoliberal Road, and we haven't had a secure hold on it since.

The GOP has always tried to hurt the little guy for the benefit of the rich. That's their brand. People knew that and voted Dems in as a counterbalance. But since our party abandoned the people, we lose.

The Ds have lost thousands of seats all on their own. Then they lied and cheated to shoehorn in the worst possible candidate. This is down to them.

No, I don't like Trump as president -- but I seem to have a better or more honest understanding of how we got him.

You want to win? Get more candidates like Ocasio-Cortez instead of Joe Manchin.
+1 # RLF 2018-07-06 06:19
The worst mistake in history was the Democratic parties believing they knew better what we needed than we did and putting their thumb on the scale. I'd rather see this country burn to the ground than continue the way it's going. At least with Trump the Republicans take the blame. Hillary wanted the same things but didn't want to take the blame. That seems to be the only difference between the Neos and the repubs.
+4 # tedrey 2018-07-05 15:16
I'm not a Russian. I'm an American who detests what Trump is doing to this country. But I also know from their own deeds and statements that the establishment Democrats have intentionally demonized Russia, joined in encircling and impoverishing her, and seek to eliminate her as an impediment to American world domination. Any sane Russian official or housewife will prefer Trump, who seeks detente, for US president to any Democrat who likes to play fratricidal Cold War.

Both parties are corrupt at home and imperialist abroad and between them are destroying the Democratic Repu blic. I know there's no way to say that andnot get those kneejerk downvotes, but I don't care. It's the simple truth, and I won't shut up about it!
+2 # lfeuille 2018-07-07 01:53
She wouldn't have made anything any better either and the reason she lost was that things had already gotten very bad for a lot of people and she didn't even acknowledge the fact. The downward spiral would have continued under Hillary with probably an increase in militarism as compared to Obama. She doesn't have to be as bad as Trump to be unacceptable. They fault lies with the party leaders who insisted on shoving her down our throats, not with the votes who gagged and spit her out.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-07 16:36
A majority of people in this country voted for her.
0 # librarian1984 2018-07-10 11:45
How many held their nose while doing so?

Her win in the popular vote came from millions of Bernie supporters -- and what's the thanks they get? You attack them and Bernie as if they were the ones who ran her shitty campaign, and the party still cheats us in the primaries and passes anti-Bernie laws.

There's no honor or justice in the DP, just a lot of corruption and egos run amok.
+9 # economagic 2018-07-04 20:06
Sorry, but I have to agree with librarian1984: The Democratic (yet undemocratic) misleadership has been telling us for decades that we must vote for their Anointed Ones because "There Is No Alternative" (Thatcher) to voting for the lesser evil no matter how evil it is as it is the only way to avoid the greater evil in the long run.

I submit that this doctrine is patently false, both in principle and in practice.
The greater evil in the long run can be averted only by calling it out forcefully in the moment (cf. Maxine Waters), providing non-evil alternatives (a problem only for the dullest of minds), and refusing to back down. If the Founders of this republic had been as timid as those promoting LOTE today (not that long ago reviled as "appeasement"), there would be no United States of America even in name, but a colony of Great Britain, or by this time more likely a colony of Germany or Italy.
-7 # JCM 2018-07-05 09:20
The financier of the trolls. That's right, tell everyone not to vote Dems. And what do we get? The very worst our society has come up with. I sincerely hope no intelligent Dem, liberal or progressive has fallen for your deceit. See my comment above. You fall into this category of troll. Everything you stand for has bought to us the very worst this country has ever had. Take your rubles and get lost.
+2 # librarian1984 2018-07-05 15:19
So now e-magic, who's been here years, is a troll too? And our financier! haha How do you like that, e? You're our rich financier now! Must be great news!

JCM, you're sounding as deranged as ol' FlufferNutter.

Americans have different opinions, comrade. It's allowed. Land of the free and all that. Tolerance seems to really bother you guys. That's what makes me think you're not progressive, probably not even liberal.

If you want to start your own hub you can boot people off, you and lil' HitlerFluffer. Otherwise, quit being so unamerican. Quit sputtering and threatening everybody, popping off accusations as if you get paid for each insult ... hmm
-2 # JCM 2018-07-05 21:18
More deflection. You didn't answer my question.
Are you comfortable with rump as president or maybe Hillary doesn’t look so bad now in comparison?
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 11:51
I've answered this several times and no, HIllary still doesn't look good.

More importantly, polls show if a new election were held today SHE WOULD STILL LOSE.

How is that not penetrating?
-2 # JCM 2018-07-06 15:40
"HIllary still doesn't look good."
So if there were just these two choices you would pick rump.
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 16:34
I wouldn't vote for either one.
-5 # JCM 2018-07-06 18:24
Not surprised. But that's the easy way out. I was applaud when she laughed at the death of Qaddafi. Still no contest, Hillary is the easy choice to what we would get if rump wins, losing the supreme court, more pollution, financial theft and destruction, etc. We can't give them any chance to win ever again.
+4 # tedrey 2018-07-06 23:18
No, if there were two choices she would choose a real progressive, and have a real chance to win.
+3 # lfeuille 2018-07-07 01:57
I picked Bernie as a write in and I would do it again. The Dem leadership just doesn't get that fear isn't enough to win elections when so many people fell that they have reached rock bottom already.
0 # JCM 2018-07-07 18:32
What would you call the way so many of us feel about where our country is going?
+3 # RLF 2018-07-06 06:10
I'll vote Democrat again when I'm offered a candidate who is not a Republican Light.
+4 # lfeuille 2018-07-07 01:27
By that logic, Republicans had to vote for Trump because he won the nomination even if they knew he was a crook. Polls have shown that the majority of Dems want the party to move left. If they leadership refuses, it is on them.
+12 # Salus Populi 2018-07-04 16:08
Exactly how do we "unite" when the DNC, since the election, has expelled virtually all the progreessives from itself; refused to support any progressive candidate; deliberately lied about Sanders's campaigning for Clinton despite his being cheated out of the nomination; focused obsessively on "Russia-gate," a distraction that apparently originated with professional perjurer and unindicted war criminal John Brennan -- a fascist neo-con to whom Obama turned as his chief foreign policy adviser -- while polls consistently show that rank-and-file Democrats have little interest in that narrative, and are much more concerned with jobs, wages, health care, their children's education, and other such topics to which the Democrats in Congress have offered zero in the way of alternative policies [such as a 'shadow budget' -- some of them even voted for the 80-odd billion increase in subsidies to the war profiteers and the continuation and expansion of the aggressive illegal war machine [[and their cronies in the media hired Nazis-in-all-bu t-name like Clapper and Brennan to provide "objective" news analysis]] ]; and, finally, at every opportunity have supported, in the primaries, ex-military brass, local bankers, and other right-of-center candidates for nomination. As Ocasio showed, it is not rightists in pathetic disguise that the people long for.

Way back in 1998, Alex Cockburn pointed out that the most leftist and outspoken Dem candidates won by the biggest margins.
-4 # RMF 2018-07-04 16:32

Kudos for the effort but you won't get a fair hearing from RSN's Bernie or busters and Dem bashers.

And the above list is riddled with inaccurate and misleading claims, e.g.; "1) Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and the Corporate Democrats are nearly all multi-millionai res..." well yes, but the voters had to be aware of candidates' financial status, and voted them into office with that what's so wrong with that...and, moreover, what exactly is Bernie's net worth -- I think he's doing OK, and that is fine -- he should be able to write books same as any other public figure.

Or consider the claim "2) Hillary Clinton lumped all us social democrats into that “basket of deplorables.” Well this claim appears very misleading -- seems to me the context of her statement clearly indicated she was not referring to the liberal/progres sive political community, but rather her comment was directed at those advocating or supporting right wing policies.

In any case, even if all 57 claims were accurate (is this a ketchup smear) there really is no alternative to the Dem party. Fracturing the liberal voting block will only cement political ascendancy of the GOP, notwithstanding it's status as a minority party.

Such a catastrophe occurred in 2000, with Nader's campaign, and again most recently in 2016. As a model for the future it will lead to disaster. No matter how much purists dislike big-tent Dems, purity tests will ensure GOP dominance and sink us all.
+2 # librarian1984 2018-07-04 19:14
"even if all 57 were accurate .. there really is no alternative to the Dem party"

Wow. What a pathetic argument. Even if all of them are true we should still vote 'D'?

There are several alternatives, the most frequently chosen being to stay home; the most neglected being the reform of our corrupt, inept party; another being the resignation of the leaders who've bungled the elections since at least 2000; perhaps not interfering in primaries.

The fact you still slander Nader and Sanders instead of recognizing they're what could save the party makes your repetitive apologias fairly tedious and repellent.

Why do you relentlessly advise us to follow people who can't win elections and don't help us when they do?

At best you're inane, but more likely dishonest. In either case pitiful.
-6 # RMF 2018-07-05 15:25
librarian --

OK, let's hear your answers on two basic questions:

1. What is Bernie's net worth?

2. How will refusing to vote Dem unseat the GOP?

I know you will refuse to answer these two questions because it would not fit your biased narrative to do so, and no doubt will respond with your nebulous talking points, as you typically do ad infinitum.
+3 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 06:00
1) Sanders is the least-millionai re-y senator. He's gained worth since his presidential bid because he's written two bestsellers. Why would I begrudge him that, or find it nearly as suspicious as Nancy Pelosi's tripling of her net worth since she took office? Why do you?

What exactly are you trying to say about Sanders?

2) The party, even after the debacle of 2016, has the SAME leaders who are using the SAME strategies that lost them over a thousand seats in the past decade.

THEREFORE, by refusing to support them until they reform, we can appeal to Independents and people who've stopped voting. That's the first way.

Secondly, by removing ineffectual leaders like Pelosi, we take away one of the GOP's biggest foils and maybe get someone who knows how to win.

Third, if these leaders are gone maybe they'll stop recruiting blue dogs and reach out to the redemption that is staring them in the face -- a return to New Deal politics.

I guarantee you if the DP fights for Medicare for All, free college, reduced military spending, livable wages, anti-corruption -- THEY WILL WIN. This seems obvious to everyone but them.

A good illustration is John Fetterman, an unapologetic progressive who, for the first time in PA history, just unseated an incumbent lt. governor, and by a wide margin -- in a state with many red districts that HRC lost.

I answered you. You answer me. Why aren't you interested in addressing the rot inside our party?
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 06:15
'Nebulous talking points'?

I offer statistics, facts and rationale way more than you do. And I answer your repetitive questions all the time, whereas no one here can pin you down on anything substantive.

I could look at your last hundred posts and find nothing but smears (#1 above) and disingenuousnes s (#2).

Obviously you don't 'know' much at all, but dishing out bad advice like three day old lasagne? THAT you've got covered.

The Democrats you so relentlessly urge us to support despite any indication they'll listen to Sanders, who got almost half of all D votes, have been losing for YEARS! So how is our continuing to support the same people with the same policies going to change that?

People want change. We have a candidate. We have a funding alternative. We have a popular agenda that matches polling results across party lines. We have a generation of voters chomping at the bit to elect progressives.

And YOUR and JCM's solution is that we turn our backs on candidates like Ocasio-Cortez so we can vote for the Joe Manchins of the world?

But I'M the deluded, dishonest one?
0 # DavidtheLiberal 2018-07-31 08:15
This piece SCREAMS for references justifying the things being said here.

No, but you really should produce references justifying your remarks.
+2 # tedrey 2018-07-06 23:24
How will refusing to let voters vote for progressives (as Pelosi is doing) unseat the GOP?
-3 # ddd-rrr 2018-07-04 20:14
Yes, thank you for that comment. It does appear that many here seem like they would
rather expend their energy "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it is sinking",
rather than doing what is necessary to save the “ship of state” from the current
disaster that is befalling it, which is one that is quite possibly
fatal to its existence.
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-05 10:26
While others would rather support corrupt politicians just because they have a D next to their name.

I would like to expend my energy fighting Trump and the GOP, but that's not what the party wants. They are running candidates who voted for Trump and support his wall.

If the party so fundamentally betrays everything I believe in, why would I support them?

Whatever it is you have that allows you to vote for Wall Street shills and war profiteers, I just don't have it.

Sanctimony ill suits cowards and enablers.
+1 # RMF 2018-07-05 15:35
# ddd-rrr

Yes, the problem is they would rather fight than win. And this attitude betrays a basic misunderstandin g about the electoral process -- it's not about doing the "feel-good" thing, which is tantamount to questioning how many angels can balance on the head of a pin.

Moreover, voting is not an abstract exercise -- it has definite real-world consequences, and acting out in ways that support the GOP, whether willful or indirect, really will sink us all.
+1 # ddd-rrr 2018-07-06 05:09
Yes, Democrats are not perfect. Humans are not perfect. Heck, "believe it or not",
even I'M not perfect! 8^) Expecting perfection from all Democrats is both unrealistic
and potentially very destructive, even if we could all agree on what constitutes
perfection (or even on an acceptable level of perfection). It is good to be
self-critical of our party and its members (unlike 'Bublicans), and
to strive for improvement in our policies and practices,
but it is also good to remember what is most
important NOW, and to NOT lose
ourselves in destructive
-1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 06:29
Au contraire! I want to fight Trump and the GOP, but the party has made it impossible to do that until we reform first. After the 2016 disaster they should've ousted the leadership and looked at their agenda, etc Instead they clung to power like leeches.

Even then, if they had incorporated Sanders' ideas, which won half the votes in the primary, progressives would have stuck with them.

Instead we got the 'Better Deal', whatever the heck that is -- even they seem to have forgotten it.

They've done NOTHING to improve election integrity, despite pearl clutching on Russian interference for a year and a half, and nothing to appeal to Independents, who outnumber BOTH parties.

In the wake of corruption, loss and poor leadership, how exactly are WE the ones who don't make sense?

Perhaps it would be more instructive to know why you DON'T think we need to address these obvious problems.

You're right. This isn't about 'feeling good'. It's about winning elections AND representing the citizens, neither of which the DP has done for a very long time.

Voting, indeed, has consequences, except if you're a Democrat, because even if you vote them in they don't stop the wars, they don't turn the economy green, they don't give us decent health care.

You aren't against fighting. You're against progressives having a voice in the party. You want our votes and our money without the inconvenience of incorporating any of our demands.

Fuck that.
0 # JCM 2018-07-06 12:44
Your whole agenda will empower the republicans forever. I can only guess your motives. Nearly all of us here what to empower progressives and primaries are the best place to do it. Not splintering our vote.
-1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 15:54
There's an EASY way not to splinter the vote: unite behind a progressive. Bernie Sanders is THE most popular politician in America. Millions of energetic young people want to vote for him. His agenda is popular and being adopted by every DP POTUS hopeful.

So, if you're willing to unite with us to beat Trump and the GOP, let's do it! I'm in.

But that's not what you mean, is it? You mean WE should give you our energy, votes and money, but be quiet and not expect anything in return.

You want us to support without question DINOs and leaders who've been losing for more than a decade.

0 # JCM 2018-07-06 18:26
No - that's not what I'm saying!
-1 # JCM 2018-07-07 13:42
What we need to do is fight like hell to get progressives on the main election ballot, if we lose the primary, vote for the winner. Voting third party or not at all - republicans win.
+1 # tedrey 2018-07-06 23:32
You go, girl!
+2 # tedrey 2018-07-06 23:37
If you believe what you say you do, you wouldn't approve of the DNC cnsistently splintering the vote by backing empty hacks who can't win popular approval against livewire progressives who can.
-1 # JCM 2018-07-07 13:36
"At this point in the Trump presidency anyone encouraging you not to vote or to vote for a third party is on someone's payroll."
But you said your not russian.
0 # Benign Observer 2018-07-09 08:10
The Democratic Party has handed them 2/3 of the state houses, Congress and the presidency, and their approval ratings are worse than Trump. How could we do worse?

We'd give them a chance if they made ANY improvements but they have the same leaders, they're using the same strategies and, rather than empowering the people who had half the votes during the primary, they've reinvigorated the Blue Dog Democrats.

When you say 'unite' what you mean is we follow whatever the establishment wants and don't ask for anything, while they become even more Republican.

That's not unity.

We need to unite behind a progressive candidate in 2020. Otherwise the Democrats are totally irrelevant. They are becoming the old GOP while the GOP is becoming Fascist Central.
+5 # economagic 2018-07-04 20:15
Sorry, we disagree on virtually all points regardless of whether you recognize it (agree to disagree). If you want to try to persuade me, start by responding directly to my replies to JCM and ddd-rrr above with serious counter-argumen ts NOT based on LOTE or TANA.
0 # RMF 2018-07-05 16:15


As you know, the magic of economics is at it's core grounded in institutionalis m, informed by empirical and statistical information.

So, in an institutional sense, I ask you the same question I asked librarian:


In short I fail to see how trying to get everything you want, but achieving nothing, no matter how "pure" that effort may be is a winning strategy.

[Trumpolini's ascendancy to the WH is clear and convincing evidence that nothing of progressive value was obtained in the 2016 campaign.]

Recall that Keynes admonished us to not forget we are all dead in the long run, clearly implying that gambling present gains against impractical or high-risk future goals, perhaps decades into the future, is a very bad bet over a too-long investment horizon.

Another great literary figure distilled that conclusion to it's essence by simply calling it "tilting at windmills."
0 # tedrey 2018-07-05 23:32
It's not "refusing to vote DEM" we're calling for, it's "not to vote DEM if they're DNC DEMs that lost in 2016 and offer nothing new in 2018, but VOTE DEM IF THEY"RE PROGRESSIVE!"
And stop pretending there aren't plenty of progressives running this year with solid backing this time, but DNC sabotage.
0 # JCM 2018-07-06 13:36
Same result - Republicans win. As bad as the Dems have been and omitting the fact that the republicans have made it nearly impossible for them to legislate, the Dems would not be killing everything we have fought for. And if your progressive won the primary, please vote for them. If they didn't you still must vote for the one who won. Don't let the republican have a chance of winning.
0 # Benign Observer 2018-07-06 15:34
-2 # JCM 2018-07-06 13:39
That's right. Her agenda is the republicans dream agenda. Split the vote, they win.
+1 # tedrey 2018-07-06 23:55
It's the DNC's choice. Run a DNC lapdog against a progresive, split the vote, and lose in the election. Let the progressive proceed to the election and win a seat. Keep the progressive from running and run the lapdog and the result is what the DNC got the last six elections.
+1 # tedrey 2018-07-06 23:44
+2 # Caliban 2018-07-04 22:21
The Wasserman article is powerful and thought-provoki ng, but you are right to start the process of responsible fact checking with an excellent critique.

Between Wasserman's analysis of the lapses of mainstream Dems and the follow-up critiques of newly active progressives, Democrats as a group may be ready to reclaim their New Deal heritage.
+3 # David Starr 2018-07-05 09:03
@ddd-rrr: It would be nice to have a united Democratic Party, but the corp Dems don't want progressive changes. That is what's needed. So, divisions can be blamed on the corp Dems more than anyone else.

The corp Dems have tried the same old formula for decades: bi-partisanship against the Party of No, being at the mercy of the corporate monolith, and attacking any Left/Progressiv e that challenges the status quo.

And this voting for the lesser of two evils has certainly gotten old. It's like the evil of two lessers. BUT, because of the pathetic political climate in the U.S., this tactic may have to be used again; if utterly necessary.

The corp Dems and the Republicans have a stranglehold on power. This has to eventually change.
+1 # RLF 2018-07-06 06:08
Since when did the corporate Democrats service anything but their own bank accounts?

Let's not forget that skin color or gender are not qualifications as a real liberal. Gillibrand, Booker are just two examples of Neos that are really DINOs.
+31 # Mimi Kennedy 2018-07-04 11:12
Brilliant article, Sluggo. Thank you. So long we’ve known these things. So long the Progressive Democrats of America tried to restore the party’s soul. That long, Pelosi&Schumer have kept their grip and made progressives feel unwelcome while trying to make us invisible. Why? It was self-defeating. The wave is coming in spite of them. One of the attributes of wisdom is mentoring the young, then giving them the reins. Who have they mentored? Seemingly no-one theybtrust tomrun things the way they do. That’s because only the weakest DEMs seem to want to do that, it’s such a manifestly wrong direction for our endangered democracy. Is Tim Kane the Corp/Dem idea of an exciting new popular face? There are charismatic smart Democrats: Maxine Waters, Raoul Grijalva, Barbar Lee, BERNIE (yes, independent but ran as a Democrat and the party should have gratefully embraced him!) the new ones coming up (Ocampo! Beto!) yet these two elders keep their names & faces at the top-which only makes it easy for hate media to ID all DEMs withnthem, making GOP hate propaganda easier. They thought they were being “civil”- they were fomenting uncivility by ignoring what they chose to feel
Powerless to change, and focusing on how they looked to themselves, a few donors, and a few colleagues. I’d still
Support them over any Republican it goes without saying. But your point, that their leadership has made things worse, not better, is so true. Alas.
+17 # tedrey 2018-07-04 11:31
I'm afraid the average American voter will answer all 57 statements with the same answer before retiring to their bubble of ignorance -- "That's not the way I heard it!"

But it's the way the rest of the world heard it, and the way, if we survive, history will hear it.
-5 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-04 11:32
This is quite a list! They are all over the place, some very good and some just not within the realm of reality. While I do agree with most items, corporate democrats did not really "enthrone Trumputin." Corp/Dems are at a dead end. They have no vision of any kind of future, but that is also true for Crop/Repubs, too. US presidential politics has been controlled by the Bushes or Clintons since 1975. This long dark night has come to an end. This period was all about the rise of neo-liberalism in economics and neo-conseratism in foreign policy -- in simpler terms, investment banking and war. Thank god it has come to an end. Trump is only one of the vultures which has descended to feast on the rotting corpse of the Bush/Clinton world order.

One disagreement:

1. "Al Dershowitz . . is being horribly snubbed by his fellow liberal neighbors on Martha’s Vineyard because he now supports Trump." I too have been accused by some real dim-wits of being a Trump supporter. Dershowitz does not support Trump. He supports civil liberties and the rule of law, all of which are being trashed out by rogue elements in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and Mueller Probe. That so few Corp/Dems understand this, is one very powerful indicator of his low they have sunk. It is important to listen to the arguments carefully. The FBI, CIA, and DOJ are real problems for US democracy -- and democracy all over the world. Dershowitz is right to point out their flaws. So what if it helps Trump.
+24 # librarian1984 2018-07-04 12:19
Dershowitz supports Zionism, imo, and everything else is perceived in relation to that.
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-04 13:34
Oh, yes. He is one of the worst and most dishonest supporters of Zionism. I've heard and read the debates between Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein. I also know that Dershowitz was instrumental in getting Finkelstein denies tenure, something which should have been a criminal act.

In fact, he's wrong on many things, but about the Mueller Probe his is right.

I guess I don't understand people who think if someone is wrong on one point, they are wrong on all points. They don't, of course, use this standards for people like Hillary and Obama who are wrong on some important points, let's say Libya or Syria and right on others.

Life is complex. People are complex. Some people just want a simple W. Bush world of pet goats and "you are with me or you are with the terrorists."
0 # Farafalla 2018-07-04 17:02
Why does RSN not allow me to respond to more than one post in a thread but always lets RR appear various times in the thread?
+1 # Benign Observer 2018-07-05 05:06
Dude, you sound like an obsessed maniac, seriously. Maybe it's time for an intervention lol
+2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-05 09:23
FF. it is very easy. Just follow these two steps:

1. write something that is interesting or contributes to the on-going discussion.

2. click the "send" button.

Remember that RSN censors are well read and they like something interesting, too. Of course, a conspiracy theorist might believe that Putin has taken over RSN, too.
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-05 10:32
Well, I sent you a quite pithy response that was deemed unacceptable, so it's not the length.

Do you think Putin runs rsn? Maybe that's Trotsky under your bed. Does he work through the Alpha Centaurans? Wait ... Don't look behind you! Run! RUN!!

Psst, FlufferNutter ... did you hear that?
+21 # tedrey 2018-07-04 11:35
Thank you, Harvey. Sincerely.
+22 # futhark 2018-07-04 12:21
My personal favorite is number 5. My recollection of the 2016 campaign is that the first thing Ms. Clinton did after announcing her candidacy was to start seeking out big-money donors. At that point I decided that there was no way in the world I could support her.

The collusion between Democratic and Republican campaigns to exclude the Green Party candidate from public debates also speaks volumes on how they don't want the public to hear any real alternatives to already failed policies they wish to continue.
+4 # Benign Observer 2018-07-04 13:33
They even handcuffed poor Jill Stein during one whole debate!
+8 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-04 14:01
Hillary actually spent more time hob-nobbing with millionaires in fundraisers than she spent actually making appearances. Had she spent more time on the road in places like Michigan, Ohio, PA, Wisconsin, she probably would have won. But the theory of her campaign and in general of the Demo party was that money wins elections, not speeches and rallies. I hope 2016 was the end of the "money wins elections" theory.,
0 # PABLO DIABLO 2018-07-04 14:18
MONEY determines who gets to be President. And, has since George Washington.
+12 # futhark 2018-07-04 18:01
This needs to change. Reversing Citizens United and eliminating the Electoral College could be the beginning of restoring democracy to America.
+6 # Benign Observer 2018-07-05 05:08
That's true in general but Ocasio-Cortex and Trump were outspent and won so while I would have agreed with you 100% two years ago, it's a little less true today.
+4 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-06 09:36
Good point. We may be in a new phase when people actually do listen to the condidate and not so much the adverts. I don't trust political ads and I think many people don't.
+11 # Wise woman 2018-07-04 14:48
This article has enlightened me as to how deep corporate money is entrenched in the DP. It is sickening. They seem to purposely lose elections to keep the GOP dollars flowing in their direction. It's simply one party paying the other to lose. What a bunch of greedy wimps. We have to do everything in our power to get progressives front and center to take over the DP or start a 3rd party.
+8 # librarian1984 2018-07-04 17:01
Yes, and I think it also shows these things don't happen in a vacuum. W led to Obama who led to Trump. Neglecting to investigate tortue gives us Gina Haspel running the CIA, for example, and her being at the CIA will also have repercussions.

Honestly, with Dems and Republicans working together so hard to set us up for another financial collapse, I think most of them should be in jail.
+5 # economagic 2018-07-04 20:23
So how--here in political hell--did we get to W?!?!?!?

Rhetorical question, of course, but perhaps it will get some people thinking about just how the groundwork for our present situation WAS laid in fact and indeed, mindful that the feudal order that has been sporadically and partially brushed back within the past 300 years actually began with the kings and priests nearly 5,000 years ago.
+3 # librarian1984 2018-07-05 10:39
To my mind every modern evil goes back to the one-two punch of Reagan-Clinton.

And they arose from the Chamber of Commerce's Powell Memorandum and the Trilateral Commission's 'The Crisis of Democracy'.

You can to back to political and economic events after Vietnam, and even WW2, but the neocon/neoliber al attack on citizens was initiated with Reagan and Clinton, imo.
+11 # futhark 2018-07-05 11:58
economagic wrote "So how--here in political hell--did we get to W?!?!?!?"

This is not really a rhetorical question. W was appointed to the presidency by the Supreme Court operating within the context of the anti-democratic Electoral College system. Historically, 4 presidents,all Republicans, have gained office with Electoral College majority votes and minority popular votes. The Electoral College system also disenfranchises American citizen residing in the territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Electoral College gave us W and it gave us Trump. It needs to go.
+3 # economagic 2018-07-06 20:04
No dispute regarding the EC, but my point in calling it a rhetorical question was precisely what librarian spelled out, and also we err when thinking of democratic government and personal liberty as some kind of historical norms.
-5 # RMF 2018-07-06 12:10
economagic -- You ask "How did we get to W?"

+2 # Benign Observer 2018-07-06 15:36
Groan. That has been refuted many times over. I really don't think you're progressive at all.
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 16:38
OMG You have GOT to be kidding me.

Well I think it's pretty clear who and what you are, and it's NOT progressive.
+2 # economagic 2018-07-06 20:00
Yeah, sorry. Nader's candidacy was neither necessary nor sufficient to generate the outcome. That virtually all phenomena worth our attention today are the result of multiple causes interacting in complex ways has been increasingly widespread for more than 50 years. You're still thinking in the linear terms of introductory algebra, and of the 19th century. And if you're denying the central role of the Florida and US Supreme Courts--well, you figure it out.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-06 21:39
There are many opinions whether Nader did lose it for Gore. What did do it for sure was the disenfranchisem ent the Governor Bush Brother pull out of his hat. Google it.
+4 # Mainiac 2018-07-04 15:22
I think we have to be very careful of the acts that we lay at Putin’s feet. Accusations like this one have to be documented: #16…likely collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin… If it is only likely why say it at all? The MSM and the BBC are throwing everything bad that happens on our planet at Putin. He did it — without evidence.
I, for one anyway, am hearing the same drumbeats of war that took us into that disaster in Iraq. We are being prepared by this demonizing of Putin, similar to the demonizing of Saddam Hussein, for some kind of a confrontation with Russia, maybe military action. Do we want that?
In addition, the answer to besting the congressional leaders is not just by electing people like Ocasio-Cortez. We also need a movement to take over the Democratic Party from the grassroots on up, town by town, city by city, state by state. But those who belabor the Party as Wasserman has done here have no idea on how to do that or why it should be done!
+5 # tedrey 2018-07-05 06:32
Google "Bernie Progressives" and remember that the mass media doesn't tell you all that's going on.
+13 # sgmp 2018-07-04 15:41
Thanks. A lot of us sensed this a few years back. It is good to have some things clarified, explained and outlined. I will print and keep this for reference. They ALL want money Time to support the grass roots group (which has little money to use) Move To Amend: Corporations are not people; money is not speech. HNRes 48 The people's amendment. Learn about it and then Ask you Congress people to support it.
+6 # economagic 2018-07-04 20:39
Yes, MTA, the only organization seriously working for the constitutional amendment that will be required in order to overturn both Citizens United and Buckley v Valeo (19776, money = speech).
+1 # Robbee 2018-07-05 09:35
Quoting economagic 2018-07-04 20:39:
Yes, MTA, the only organization seriously working for the constitutional amendment that will be required in order to overturn both Citizens United and Buckley v Valeo (19776, money = speech).

- mta is not good enough!(nge)

mta seeks to restore to congress the right to limit bribes to congress - congress is the body that lets private humans contribute up to $5 million per year to fund congressional elections - congress is a community of millionaires who like to take bribes, the more the merrier! - congress is out of control and will not be put back in control by an amendment that only allows it to self-limit its currently unlimited power to take bribes! nge! not good enough!

if we go through all the trouble of amending the constitution? why would we bother with an amendment that restores the political system that gave us "citizens united" for plutocrats? - unlimited money in politics?

P U B L I C - F U N D I N G - O N L Y ! - power to the people!
+3 # economagic 2018-07-06 20:07
Yes, but I was referring not to ultimate ideals but to proximate realities.
0 # Robbee 2018-07-09 08:28
Quoting economagic:
Yes, but I was referring not to ultimate ideals but to proximate realities.

- what proximate reality?

we can spend the rest of our lives fighting unlimited private, dark money in politics - and still lose!

we can only "win" if we convince the vast majority of tv viewers and radio listeners to stop watching and listening to corporate mum ads! - the odds of this very closely approach zero!

robbee's promise is to spend the rest of my life advocating overthrowing our capitalist, corporate masters? - meanwhile what will nomagic be doing? triangulating to public funding?

bernie and hillary have publicly endorsed a constitutional amendment that restores to millionaires, a/k/a congress, the right to legislate how much money "persons", even corporations, can bribe them - well knowing that the higher the limit congress sets, the better the bribe elects! - odds of getting even this moronic measure ratified by 3/4 of states, with 2/3 or more of states addicted to corporate bribes, is virtually zero, no chance -

i'm gonna treat our leaders' triangulating corporate bribes like i treated hillary's campaign - I voted for hillary, for reasons i repeatedly expressed here, i trusted her limited progressivism above dickhead's treachery; i endorsed her here; but i gave no money or time to hillary's campaign

i'm not saying public funding is proximate reality; it's not! - it makes no sense to me that mta is! - it's a waste of my short life!
0 # Robbee 2018-07-09 08:49
in sum,

a) is constitutionall y empowering millionaires to limit their bribes;

b) is constitutionall y granting we the people the right to public funding, only, of federal, state and local elections

i will spend the rest of my life rooting for item a

i will spend the rest of my life fighting for item b

anything is better than the bribery system we have - i will cherish any rx for democracy we the people can get!
-3 # JCM 2018-07-04 21:35
The republicans are in control. Not a chance.
+3 # economagic 2018-07-05 20:43
Mama don't 'low no desperation 'round here. As Kierkegaard wisely said, despair is the sickness unto death. While there must be a few, I don't recall any stories of Jews in the camps hanging themselves--qui te the contrary. And not many others either: See Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Viktor Frankl, and many others.
-4 # JCM 2018-07-06 13:46
Get real here. There is no chance anything like that would pass through congress when the repubs are in control. And I really find any comparison to the death camps truly offensive. In the guise of reforming the Dems. You are truly despicable telling these people to disassemble the Dems in order for the republicans to win. That's what your agenda has and would do.
0 # Benign Observer 2018-07-06 16:40
Oh ho ho! Your true allegiance becomes more and more transparent!
+3 # economagic 2018-07-06 20:19
OK, let me put it another way: If we insist that we are helpless we are thereby rendered helpless by our own volition. It is tantamount if not identical to lying down in the middle of the road and waiting to be run over by a truck.

Acknowledging the possibility of an outcome other than total catastrophe does NOT assure that total catastrophe will not ensue. But to refuse the possibility makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Really now. I am not making this stuff up out of whole cloth. It is basic logic (more accurately "reason"), and part of any competent introduction to philosophy, the study of how to think coherently. You are entitled to your opinions, even if they are contrary to established "facts" (in quotes because we understand today that all knowledge is subject to revision on the basis of new evidence). But when one pursues such a course one forfeits her/his right to be taken seriously.
+9 # grandlakeguy 2018-07-04 18:58
I was disgusted with the Democratic party before reading this and now I am even MORE disgusted.
So much spineless acquiescence and complicity with the Republicans that it is easy to forget some of these outrages..

BERNIE....PLEASE we need a third party!!!!!!
0 # JCM 2018-07-05 09:56
grandlakeguy: I voted for Bernie but even if he were to run on an 3rd party ticket it would just splinter the democratic vote and again the republicans would win. As bad as the Dems might be they don't come close to the damage the republicans create. Disenfranchisem ent, Crosschecking, extreme Gerrymandering, more pollution, less financial regulations. Most important their denial of Climate Change. The Dems vote for decreasing pollution, increases in consumer protections, voter rights, healthcare, the Safety Net and most importantly they believe in Climate Change and science. The Dems and the republicans are not even close to being the same. We must not give the republicans a chance to win by voting for a 3rd party. There is too much at stake as we see now the destruction to our government.
+3 # grandlakeguy 2018-07-05 14:31
JCM: I know that you are right but what makes me crazy is the fact that since at least 2000 it has been painfully obvious that the Republicans are cheating when it comes to elections and the Dems say and do nearly nothing about it as the manipulation and disenfranchisem ent gets progressively worse.

How can we ever turn this around if the opposition party allows the continuation of our fake elections?

If nothing else perhaps a third party can expose the corruption at the polls so that we can fix that outrage and return to a system of actual representative governance.
+3 # librarian1984 2018-07-05 15:35
Uh-huh, what exactly are the Democrats doing to fight climate change. Sec. of State Clinton pushed fracking and war all over the world, activities with big footprints.

The Democrats, especially when they had total control, never stopped subsidies to oil companies, already the most profitable companies on the planet, nor did they do much to shift us to a green economy.

The media is not liberal. They're corporate. The Democrats aren't democratic. They're corporate.

Here's a riddle: Who's worse, people who deny climate change is happening, or people who believe in it but work against improvement anyway, for money?

What have the Democrats done about election integrity, or gerrymandering, or the electoral college?

What have they done to stop wars or drone killing or genocide in Palestine?

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both tried to 'reform' our safety net and it was clear from Hillary's Wall Street speech transcripts she meant to be the one to finally deliver that jackpot to corporate interests.

Those are some nice mythic Democrats you've dreamed up. I wish they bore any resemblance to what we've actually got. You think we're pissed off because we're 'tired of winning'?

You say we'll lose if we split the vote? WE'RE LOSING NOW. More than a thousand state seats, dozens of House seats and statehouses and senators.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-05 21:40
So you want to help the republicans win some more? You even talk like a republican.
The Dems never had a usable super majority for any real time. See my comment, 4th down from top. It's mostly a republican talking point that you're using. So answer my question.
Would you rather have trump as president or Hillary?
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 11:25
Funny, they had time to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

You say you don't want to vote for somebody who has no chance of winning? Who determines that .. people from the 1960s?

All the polling for a year showed HRC in a statistical dead heat with Trump, which is exactly what happened, while Sanders beat him with double-digit margins every time -- so you're not even following your own dictum.

What about this? The DCCC and DNC quit cheating in their establishment candidates, stop choosing candidates before anyone casts a vote? If you want the candidates most likely to win, stay the hell out of the way and let the citizens in the district decide who the candidate is!

I've asked you repeatedly to comment on the Steny Hoyer tape and Pelosi's defense of it. How about addressing the corruption in the party. When is it a good time to fix that?

Academic research shows there is ZERO correlation between what voters want and the legislation that's passed, while there's a very high correlation between what DONORS want and what passes. So let the donors vote for them. That's who they work for.

There is an age old electoral formula: make promises, get votes. I don't know why the Democrats decided that wasn't the calculus anymore, but sure, they can have ALL the donors' votes. Good luck with that.

They're not reforming voluntarily, so what do you propose we do about corruption?

Or are you okay with it?
-1 # JCM 2018-07-06 13:50
How about you, instead of tearing down the Democrats spend a little time tearing down the republicans. There's an infinite amount more to tear down the republicans for any Progressive. But all you do is tear down the Dems.
+2 # economagic 2018-07-06 20:47
It's not a matter of "tearing down" one party or the other, because its not a matter of one party or the other: It is a matter of issues and policies. The Republican party enforces tight internal discipline. The Democratic party, being somewhat democratic, does not, but its current misleadership, wildly out of touch with its base much less its progressive wing, dictates who gets to run under the party banner.

You seem to have a pretty simplistic view of everything. You're entitled to that, but I'm entitled to ignore you and/or try to help you understand that it ain't that simple in so many ways.
-2 # JCM 2018-07-07 18:40
There is a certain amount of simplicity to elections. Math.
0 # librarian1984 2018-07-08 08:22
And yet the DP consistently cheats and abuses progressives. They don't seem to understand addition.

Remember Schumer's calculus, that for every blue collar (or progressive) voter they lost, they'd get two (or more!) suburban centrist Republicans? How'd that work out?

Elections are not JUST about math. They're also about negotiation -- convincing voters by making campaign promises. So far the DP STILL isn't giving people anything to vote FOR.

Like the GOP, they are relying on fear and, in the Ds case, demographics.

Not. Going. To. Work.

+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-07 04:31
Do I really need to enumerate the many, many ways Trump and the GOP are horrible, corrupt, inept, murderous clowns? That seems to be well covered by multiple sources. But if you require some obeisance to the obvious, sure, Republicans are bad.

But we also know they couldn't accomplish what they do without the collusion of Democrats. For instance the Ds who just helped the GOP rederegulate the banks or put a torturer in charge of the CIA.

I believe the party is using the Russia hysteria to smokescreen their own corruption and prevent reform after their abysmal and sometimes criminal 2016 performance.

I believe they also want us to focus on Trump rather than the GOP, to see Trump as the only problem, so when he's gone they can all go back to their cozy good cop-bad cop routine.

For those reasons I believe it's important some few of us keep an eye on what's happening outside the glare of the corporate media's gaze.

Magicians, politicians and the media know the value of deflection and distraction. And, I believe, so do you.
+1 # grandlakeguy 2018-07-05 23:25
Thanks librarian, all good points.
If we wait for the current Democratic party leadership to finally go away when they all die of old age it will certainly be too late for our democracy and for the environment.

They are almost as much the problem ass the Republicans!

Allowing the obscenity of rigged elections to continue with hopes of overcoming the fraud is like playing poker with a card shark who is using a marked deck. You know the cards are marked but keep telling yourself that your luck is bound to change...clearl y an exercise in futility. For the Dems, 18 years of openly stolen elections by the criminal Republican party is STILL not enough to get them to stand up to that treason.

It is high time to shake things up especially as more people today call themselves independents than either D's or R's.
0 # JCM 2018-07-06 11:01
librarian and the others are telling you to punish the Dems because they are so terrible. How much more terrible are the republicans? Ten times more, a hundred times more? You punish the Dems you get the republicans. Is that want you want to do? You can see now the destruction the republicans and rump are doing to our country. Some of these trolls have even said they would rather have rump as president instead of Hillary. Hillary had a lot of problems particularly in foreign policies but she would not be ruining nearly everything liberals and progressives have fought for. We have already lost the supreme court. If we don’t get the Senate back the supreme court will be out of our reach for decades. 3rd parties haven’t changed anything. Your vote to win, at least, has a chance.
0 # longingfortruth 2018-07-06 11:53
There are Democrats in Congress right now who are actively working on public campaign financing. They ran on it and won on it. Stop promoting learned helplessness with your generalizations and false equivalency. You want us to drink your Kool Aid just like the Trump supporters, only theirs is deep red and yours is pure white. Same results.
0 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 12:19
if you're talking to me, your name doesn't fit your rhetoric.

The learned helplessness is coming from the party and its apologists who advise us to vote for ANY Democrat. How do you think we got Manchin and Donnelly? How do you think we got Trump?

Progressives are aching to fight -- we have a lot of exciting ideas and a generation of voters who will NOT vote for corrupt Democrats -- while Pelosi et al are telling us to roll over and let Republicans take over the party and forget about impeachment. Are you okay with that too? Are you happy they're moving right? Are you satisfied with their performance in the last ten years, and think it's a great strategy for 2018 and 2020? Are you glad Steny Hoyer picks candidates before anyone votes?

If so, the DP is your party, and Trump's reelection is on you.
-3 # JCM 2018-07-06 13:53
The truth is that no progressive wants the republicans to win for any cost. These trolls would want you to tear down the Dems in the guise of making them better while the republicans keep winning.
0 # Benign Observer 2018-07-06 15:49
And you want us to vote for them without demanding they get better. It's not a 'guise'. It's why they lose. Reforming the party will help them win.

Seems to me running corrupt politicians hasn't been winning for a while.
+2 # economagic 2018-07-06 20:22
WHAT?!? Who? Where, and in what offices?
+10 # longingfortruth 2018-07-04 19:56
Yes, it feels so good to have all our complaints itemized and validated. Now can we please take action instead of complaining? Support Root Strikers, MayDay for public financing of campaigns. Work to end gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the electoral college. We can't just wait for more Ocasia-Cortezes . Queens/Bronx is a pretty unusual place. As bad as the DNC is, at least it isn't the Koch brothers, the Mercers, the Olins, DeVos and Coors completely destroying democratic institutions. ALEC founder Weyrich set out his agenda at the Religious Roundtable, "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now....our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Each one of us can register voters, help them get IDs, drive them to early voting. You are smart - do something! I'm sick of this learned helplessness of false equivalency.
-1 # JCM 2018-07-05 12:10
Until we get back the House and Senate we have little we can do to stop the republican destruction. Now that the supreme court will be more stacked against us it is even more important to vote for every primary Democratic candidate. We can't give the republicans any chance of winning by voting 3rd party. Some people never learn this lesson and there are many trolls here that will tell you otherwise. How we do in this next election is all about turnout.
-1 # librarian1984 2018-07-05 16:03
You know who never learns? The Democrap Party who, despite incontrovertibl e evidence, is going to push the party even further to the right.

Do you understand how politics works? The politicians promise just enough to get the votes they need to win, and then we vote for them. What have they offered? While they ignore crooked elections and millions DemExiting, they still wants progressive votes and money.

No. That's not how it works.

You're a fearmonger who's doing its (admittedly tepid) best to convince us to support Ds even when they cheat us and ignore us. How'd that work last time?

'I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it then for something I don't want and get it.' - Eugene V. Debs
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-07-06 09:50
librarian - but it is even worse than that. Big name republicans are leaving the party and going over to the Democrats. Your boy, Joe Scarborough is out. George Will has left the party. Here is from OpEdNews:

"What does it say that George Will would prefer that Pelosi be the next Speaker of the House over any Republican?"

Is it possible that the democrats may be the party of Will, Max Boot, GHW Bush and W. Bush, McCain and the rest of the former republican neo-cons. THey are running away from Trump.

"George Will, Joe Scarborough lead midterm exodus from GOP"
By Brent Budowsky
0 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 11:38
So at the same time the Democrap leadership is giving more influence to blue dog Democrats who support Trump's policies (Joe Manchin votes with Trump more than half the time), NeverTrump Republicans are moving in to our party and deciding who should run, who should lead, etc!

And next cycle JCM and RMF will be telling us why we should vote for the 'new' Democrats. At last, Bill Clinton's dreams will come true -- we will BE Republican-lite.

In the meantime, progressives should donate, vote, work -- and shut up -- while the Republicans literally take over our party?!

THIS is the best time to pressure the party to reform. It's primary season in a non-POTUS year.

The victory of Ocasio-Cortez has really thrown them for a loop. Let's see what a dozen more do. Maybe THEN they'll kick out the invading GOP and move left, and we can work together to defeat Trump and the GOP!

I heard today several NeverTrumpers are considering running against him in 2020. If that happens we can:

A) afford to run a progressive candidate because the GOP vote will be split, or

B) afford to run a new party devoted to progressive policy and candidates, because BOTH votes will be split.

Right, DP apologists?
+2 # economagic 2018-07-07 20:14
Indeed. Far too many people (including a couple you have named) are still voting for parties instead of policies.
+1 # librarian1984 2018-07-08 08:29
Hey, e -- remember when you and me and Radscal used to shut down those loooong threads?
+7 # economagic 2018-07-05 20:48
Exactly. So how do we "get back the House and Senate," that being indeed Job One? The obstacles are clear. What we need is serious strategizing about how to surmount them. As Reinhold Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer" says, ". . . the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Don't get any ideas: I'm an atheist, and I take wisdom wherever I can find it.
+6 # tedrey 2018-07-05 06:55
If the Democratic regime would run progressives under Ocasio-Cortez' or Bernie's platform, Trump would be out!

If they don't, Pelosi and Schumer will have confirmed Trump and negateded the Democratic Party for good. I expect they will do just that. So we have to find Prgressives without them.

Look, of course don't vote Republican. But, just as important, *never* vote establishment Democrat for any office when there's a progressive available (Democrat, independant, Green); there are a great number running this year across the slate, and across the country.
-1 # JCM 2018-07-05 12:17
Unfortunately, whenever you vote 3rd party you splinter the total Democratic vote giving the election to the republicans. I believe it is most important to vote for the candidate most likely to win even if they are not your first pick. Any Dem would be infinitely better than any republican. Establishment Dems generally would still try to reduce pollution, improve financial laws and try to maintain the Safety Net. At least a lot better than a republican. The time to get progressives in is the primary.
+4 # economagic 2018-07-05 10:21
Folks, it appears from the many red thumbs for thoughtful and coherent posts from people we know and trust (regardless of whether we agree with them) as if we are once again under attack from trolls as was the case two years ago. The delayed posting (censorship) was ostensibly instituted to help deal with that problem.
+5 # MPC 2018-07-05 14:29
This article spells things out so clearly and articulately. I have been down on the many, many corporate Dems for years. I was unaware of several of the numerous dirty dealings attributed to corporate Dems which further cemented my dismay and feelings of betrayal.

I am ready to break ranks if a third party with a chance to win formed. It would have to truly be democratic and have qualities and goals Republicans and corporate Dems lack. The people need to take back our country. We need a government that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people - Not an oligarchic, kleptocratic corporatocracy.

Thank you, Harvey W. for this enlightening article.
+1 # JCM 2018-07-05 21:44
Vote in the primaries for the candidate of your choice then vote for the winner in the election. Don't give the republicans a chance.
+3 # economagic 2018-07-06 20:38
"Don't give the republicans a chance."

Of course I will not, and I will extend the same courtesy to any DINO who routinely votes Republican.
+1 # Benign Observer 2018-07-06 07:42
Ro Khanna is a relatively new representative (CA) endorsed by Justice Democrats. That means he takes no PAC money. Period. He sounds progressive but a few of his moves have seemed shady. For instance he endorsed BOTH Joe Crowley AND Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz in NY-14.

Here is a fascinating interview of Khanna by Jimmy Dore, a comedian-turned -activist who's become an excellent progressive political analyst while being brashly funny.

There aren't many laughs in this exchange (40:46) but it is a superb look at the party by someone with (at least) progressive leanings who's been there for a couple of years now.

I think this is really worthwhile viewing, of interest to people who want to determine whether or not it's possible to reform the party, a question central to debate here at rsn. I hope people will watch it and comment.
+3 # librarian1984 2018-07-06 20:04
This was really good, especially the last ten minutes or so. Khanna is saying he and a core group of Democrats are trying to convince party members to adopt progressive measures, work for campaign finance reform, etc.

He says the party's actions are slow to follow their rhetoric but he still thinks reform within the party is possible and asks us to give them until the 2020 election to see what progress they can make.

He represents Silicon Valley and has many fine qualities. I will support their efforts but I worry if they fail we'll be stranded when we need to fight Trump and when redistricting takes place.

He says the political drivers are outside the halls of Congress and we need a progressive candidate in 2020.
0 # JCM 2018-07-08 06:56
Harvey "Sluggo" Wasserman, How about a piece on 1000 ways the republicans have ripped off America.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.