RIP, Democratic Party, 1933-2010

King Fisher · **Posted:** Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:11 am

RIP, Democratic Party, 1933-2010

The Obama Administration on Friday, 17 December 2010, announced the death of the Democratic Party, the AP is reporting. The Party was 77 years old.

Although many believed the party to be much older, it was born March 4, 1933 at the inauguration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Party led a vigorous youth, passing in its early days a number of socially conscious programs, including Social Security, banking reform legislation, and many jobs programs. The Party was able to lead the nation through World War II, and remained strong and confident it its beliefs.

Most Party watchers believe the first signs of illness began shortly following the end of the Truman administration. Although outwardly the Party seemed healthy, the early sixties showed the beginnings of a slow atrophy in its otherwise strong union arms.

The Party rallied briefly in the mid 1960’s, passing the Civil Rights Act and Medicare, as well as environmental legislation, and to most it appeared to regain its youthful vigor. However, most experts believed that exposure in the jungles of Viet Nam caused the final illness leading to death. Following the Party’s return home from that conflict, a long decline ensued, and the Party was by the turn of the century a mere shell of itself.

Although on life support, the Party rallied again briefly in 2008 with the election of the first black President, but the appearance of health was an illusion.

With the apparent willingness to dismantle the most basic Democratic programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment, and its inability to maintain any semblance of fight against the Republicans, the Party was today pronounced dead.
This all due to the President of the United States telling the people in his campaign days, there will be "change" in America. Little did we know it would mean the changes he were referring to, would be the demise of the Democratic party. He very well could be the the enemy of America.

The Party died virtually alone. A few old cousins remain in unions in Michigan, and several retired environmental cousins reside on either coast.

In lieu of flowers, contributions may be sent to Find A Cure for Triangulation (FACT) at PO Box 1992, Clintonville, AR,

Catherine · **Posted:** Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:56 pm

Very good post, KF...In my opinion, however, the Democratic party is not dead. Instead, it is in a deep coma, subject to being "resurrected" by a real leader, one who does not compromise with those who he or she knows will continue taking the country in the wrong direction; by that, I mean starting in the center and moving right, the modus operandi of the Democratic Party for the past 30 years.

So what is the answer? Perhaps "primary" the president in 2012? Can you imagine the attacks from the establishment Dems, the aristocratic Repubs and their serfs, the teabaggers as they parade out their poster children...either Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and/or Sarah Palin? It's not something that is beyond belief....but if there is to be a "primarying" of the president, the person challenging him might even be one (or several) of these:

LINK: http://my.firedoglake.com/themalcontent ... ary-obama/

The List

Al Franken
Al Gore
Alan Grayson
Alexander Cockburn
Amy Klobuchar
Andrew Bacevich
Andrew Cuomo
Andrew Romanoff
Arianna Huffington
Brian Schweitzer
Ben Affleck
Bernie Sanders
William K. Black
Bill McKibben
Bill Moyers
Bill Richardson
Brad Birkenfeld (Information on Birkenfeld’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Cenk Uygar
Cindy Sheehan
Dahr Jamail
David Corn
David Sirota
Dawn Johnsen
Dean Baker (Information on Baker’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Dennis Kucinich
Dick Durbin
Don Siegelman
Donna Edwards
Dylan Ratigan
Eliot Spitzer
Elizabeth Warren
Geoffrey Canada
George Clooney
George Miller
George J. Mitchell
Glenn Greenwald
Henry Waxman
Howard Dean
James Galbraith (Information on Galbraith’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Jim Hightower
Jan Schakowsky
Jane Hamsher
Jeff Merkley
Jerrold Nadler
Jerry Brown
Jesse Ventura
Jill Stein
Joe Wilson
John Aravosis (Confirmation of Aravosis’s place of birth, listed in several places online as “America,” is not readily available)
John R. Talbott (Information on Talbott’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Jon Stewart
Jon Hamm
Jonathan Turley (Information on Turley’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Joseph Stiglitz
Keith Olbermann
Lewis Black
Madonna
Matt Taibbi (Information on Galbraith’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Maurice Hinchey
Michael Moore
Mike Gravel
Nancy Pelosi
Patrick Fitzgerald
Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Krugman
Peter DeFazio
Rachel Maddow
Ralph Nader
Raul Grijalva
Richard Trumka
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Robert Reich
Ron Paul
Russ Feingold
Sheldon Whitehouse
Sherrod Brown
Shirley Sherrod
Stephen Colbert
Susan Sarandon
Tammy Baldwin
Tom Udall
Valerie Plame
Van Jones
Warren Mosler (no Wikipedia entry)
Yves Smith (no Wikipedia entry)

:wink:

A Proud Liberal · **Posted:** Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:17 pm

Here’s one to rule out on the list. Arianna Huffington was born Arianna Stassinopoulous in Athens, Greece, the daughter of Konstantinos (a journalist and management consultant) and Elli (née Georgiadi) Stassinopoulous, and is the sister of Agapi (an author, speaker and performer).

King Fisher · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:16 am

That list may have some fine outstanding people, who and may like to run for President, but, none meets todays standards. Sen. Sherrod Brown would be a very good choice and some day may run. The Al Gore's, Al Franklin, Rob't Kennedy. Jr, Tom Udall, and Dick Durbin is past history. Alan Grayson has the will, grit, and knowledge to be a good President, but, his appearance takes the nomination away.

From my perch, I don't see any real class Democrat that would run and beat a Republican. That goes back to the original post...the Democratic Party is RIP.

Catherine · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:20 am

AW, shucks, I would love to see Arriana debate Palin!

Methinks the Dems will forgive the president his lying down with the Repub dogs by the election...and we the middle class American people will still not be represented...but that's becoming rather normal, isn't it? :cry:

I like Debbie W. Schultz, and Sen. Sherrod Brown...and of course Brian Schweitzer. Looking at that list makes me wonder why the president didn't choose some of them to make up a better CAbinet, too.

A Proud Liberal · **Posted:** Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:57 pm

Catherine wrote:

Looking at that list makes me wonder why the president didn't choose some of them to make up a better CAbinet, too.

If one lives in Arizona, one wishes he had left our Governor alone when picking cabinet posts. We have been stuck with Jan Brewer and all Repugs holding ALL statewide offices.

Catherine · **Posted:** Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:05 am

Quote:

If one lives in Arizona, one wishes he had left our Governor alone when picking cabinet posts. We have been stuck with Jan Brewer and all Repugs holding ALL statewide offices.

AGREED, APL...AGREED!

expiretheliars · **Joined:** Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:04 am **Posts:** 329

Catherine wrote:

AW, shucks, I would love to see Arriana debate Palin!

Methinks the Dems will forgive the president his lying down with the Repub dogs by the election...and we the middle class American people will still not be represented...but that's becoming rather normal, isn't it? :cry:

I like Debbie W. Schultz, and Sen. Sherrod Brown...and of course Brian Schweitzer. Looking at that list makes me wonder why the president didn't choose some of them to make up a better CAbinet, too.

*** Looking at that list makes me wonder why the president didn't choose some of them to make up a better CAbinet, too.***

Well Catherine, if I had to wet my finger, and stick it in the wing, I'd have to say that "the writing was (already) on the wall," long before O'bama entered the White House.

Just look at the legislation he's passes, and the amount of right wingers in his cabinet.

...and that "idiotic" look on O'bama's face, when (I forget his name) he recently stepped down, to what it looks like apparently, to run against O'bama in 2012?

Boy, that's loyalty, isn't it!!

And recently, Obama's (debate?) against Bill (yes, I'm going to hell) O'Reilly in the White House. Does one actually think, that O'Reilly would of been there, if we had let's say, an FDR in the White House?

Thanks again NOBAMA!!

If the opposition isn't strong enough, then O'Reilly will continue to be around, like a bad case of head lice!! :evil:

Catherine · **Posted:** Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:17 am

DO YOU ALL THINK OBAMA HAS FOUND HIS SPINE? DID THE BIN LADEN VICTORY MAKE HIM A 'BETTER PRESIDENT?' I DON'T KNOW, BUT I HOPE, HOPE, HOPE HE STANDS FIRM AGAINST THE LATEST 'HOSTAGE' SITUATION OFFERED UP BY THE RETHUGS...THEY'RE TRYING TO SAVE FACE ON THEIR MEDICARE STUMBLES BY TRYING TO LOOK TOUGH ON THE DEBT CEILING... :evil:

House Republicans Still In Standoff With Obama Over Debt Ceiling (VIDEO)

Quote:

House Republicans huddled with President Obama Wednesday morning and afterward cited little if any progress in reaching an agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling or reduce spiraling deficits.

The House GOP leadership said they gave Obama an earful on a number of economic issues, including unemployment, the national debt and government regulation. Without a deal to reduce spending, House Republicans say they will stand firm against an increase in the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) called the discussion "frank" and "productive."

"I'm looking forward to more serious conversations on how to reduce the deficit and the debt and get our economy going again," he said.

Other Republicans complained that the White House and Democrats still lacked a plan to cut spending.

CUT SPENDING, CUT SPENDING, CUT SPENDING...WHAT I WANT TO KNOW FROM THESE REPUB SONS OF BITCHES IS WHERE THE HELL ARE THE JOBS!

COMMENT LEFT AT THE LINK:

Quote:

I suspect that as August approaches that the Republicans will go from publicly posturing to privately begging Obama to save them from the monster they created. Obama basically doesn't have to do anything. Ultimately it will be up to the Republican-controlled House to hash out a compromise with the Democrat-controlled Senate. Senate Democrats will offer the House Republicans a face-saving compromise as they did with the budget. Wall Street will force the House Republicans to sacrifice some of their tea-bagging brothers and sisters, and accept the compromise. There is no good outcome here for the Republicans.

Catherine · **Posted:** Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:20 am

Quote:

If one lives in Arizona, one wishes he had left our Governor alone when picking cabinet posts. We have been stuck with Jan Brewer and all Repugs holding ALL statewide offices.

AND NOW, APL...YOU GOT THE WASILLA HILLBILLIES LIVING IN YOUR STATE....AND THEY SEEM TO LIKE TO BREED!

Catherine · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:18 am

HERE'S A REPORT ABOUT WHAT WE'VE LOST, THANKS TO TEN YEARS OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE AMERICAN RICH!

The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts

Today (JUNE 7) marks the 10th anniversary of former President George W. Bush signing into law his 2001 tax cuts (he passed a second round in 2003). While doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither.

The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion through 2010. But America didn’t have to go down this route of cutting taxes and hoping for growth to miraculously appear. There were other policy options available to policymakers.

ThinkProgress, using data on various social spending projects from the National Priorities Project — which does these calculations for the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars — has estimated ten other possible policies we could’ve paid for at the same $2.5 trillion price of the Bush tax cuts. While not all of these policies are currently performed by the federal government, they do represent an accurate calculation of the monetary tradeoffs, and each one individually would cost the same as the Bush tax cuts. Here are ten alternatives we could’ve pursued instead:

- Give 122.7 Million Children Low-Income Health Care Every Year For Ten Years

- Give 49.2 Million People Access To Low-Income Healthcare Every Year For Ten Years

- Provide 43.1 Million Students With Pell Grants Worth $5,500 Every Year For Ten Years

- Provide 31.5 Million Head Start Slots For Children Every Year For Ten Years

- Provide VA Care For 30.7 Million Military Veterans Every Year For Ten Years

- Provide 30.4 Million Scholarships For University Students Every Year For Ten Years

- Hire 4.19 Million Firefighters Every Year For Ten Years

- Hire 3.67 Million Elementary School Teachers Every Year For Ten Years

- Hire 3.6 Million Police Officers Every Year For Ten Years

- Retrofit 144.6 Million Households For Wind Power Every Year For Ten Years

- Retrofit 54.2 Million Households For Solar Photovoltaic Energy Every Year For Ten Years

The tradeoffs paint a stark picture. For the same price as the Bush tax cuts, which did little to help the economy, we could’ve sent tens of millions of students to college, retrofitted every household in America with the capacity to generate alternative energy, hired millions of firefighters and police officers, effectively ended our national shame of having kids who lack health care coverage, or put millions of more teachers into classrooms. But instead, Congress passed budget-breaking tax cuts, and then went on to pass even more in 2003. In 2010, Congress then went on to renew the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years, and the political will for the sort of public investments listed above appears to have dried up.

Catherine · **Posted:** Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:27 am

LOOKS LIKE SPINELESS OBAMA HAS CAVED AGAIN! :evil:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

WILL SOMEBODY TELL OBAMA AND THE REPUBLICANS MASQUERADING AS DEMOCRATS AND THE BONA FIDE REPUBLICANS THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM?

King Fisher · **Posted:** Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:49 pm

This Baboon surely understands if he wants to cut society security benefits....monthly benefits cuts by 3.7%, he won't place above 38% in the pools for re-election time. In fact, he will lose big time. The black people of this county...those getting a monthly check, and all the senior white people getting the same will not vote for a "loser" for President. We don't know what is behind his thinking, or if he knows the score. Something about this President I never liked or cared for. The Republicans know this, and they know how to handle him... more like a weasel than a person who should stand up and me a President for all people, not just for the Repugs.

Catherine · **Posted:** Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:31 am

FINALLY! BUT WILL IT LAST?

Obama Warns Cantor 'Don't Call My Bluff' As Debt Talks Stall

COMMENT BY "OTHERDAY" AT THE LINK:

Quote:

The debt ceiling was raised 7 times under Bush Junior. The Congress didn't try to bring down his presidency over the issue. Why is it different for President Obama? Because he is black?

These "public servants" work for us. It's their job to "faithfully execute the law," and in Congress's case, to manage our nation's fiscal matters in a responsible way. Running the USA into default for the first time is the opposite of responsible.

RIP, Democratic Party, 1933-2010

Who is online