General Discussion

Utopian Leftist

(534 posts)

92. You get what you're willing to settle for.

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 08:34 PM

Jun 2014

For too long the left has been willing to settle. We needed another hero. But we settled for slick Bill Clinton. We needed another Roosevelt but we settled for Barack Obama, because that was who we could get elected in this toxic political environment. Both of those Presidents ran as centrists and then betrayed the interests of the 99 percent.

We can't afford to settle again.

Why settle for single payer healthcare, for example? Let's find someone who wants to champion Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights! It's time in this country for liberals and progressives and liberators of all sorts, whatever we are calling ourselves these days, it is time for us to stand up and be proud of our heritage, and be proud that we are on the side of science, the side of peace and the side of prosperity; proud that we hold the answers and solutions for the future.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

117 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Salon: A left-wing Tea Party may be closer than you think [View all] pampango Jun 2014 OP

If there was a viable Socialist option, I'd be gone. hobbit709 Jun 2014 #1

Agreed...I wouldnt vote socialist until it was truly viable, Democratic Socialism is what the randys1 Jun 2014 #29

The problem with that... Chan790 Jun 2014 #71

Agree Marrah_G Jun 2014 #35

Me, too. Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #79

Demands of ideological purity are often a little rigid for my taste DFW Jun 2014 #2

Most of the demand for "uncompromising rigidity" seem to come from those who have put party djean111 Jun 2014 #6

Most of the ones that jump out to me DFW Jun 2014 #9

There's a difference between compromise and leading the enemy's charge MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #44

Yup! djean111 Jun 2014 #45

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jun 2014 #50

:/ Phlem Jun 2014 #107

The importance of 'social issues' (civil rights?) should not be minimized. pampango Jun 2014 #10

I do not minimize social issues at all. I am saying that social issues should not be used as cover djean111 Jun 2014 #30

+ another Scuba Jun 2014 #34

While Democrats push forward on some social issues (e.g. LGBTQ rights), Maedhros Jun 2014 #67

+1 840high Jun 2014 #104

+1 Scuba Jun 2014 #33

It has become all too painfully obvious. Enthusiast Jun 2014 #52

I agree with you but want to point out that it's not the left that rhett o rick Jun 2014 #16

Not only radical, but traitorous Doctor_J Jun 2014 #18

Got proof? Andy823 Jun 2014 #99

That is what I am saying - it is not the Left, but the rigid party faithful who do not look at djean111 Jun 2014 #25

"I don't think the rigid lockstep people understand, as yet, that it is what Warren stands for winter is coming Jun 2014 #100

+1 a whole fucking bunch. Enthusiast Jun 2014 #54

In Texas, the Warren wing is difficult to locate. DFW Jun 2014 #58

As of this date, the Democratic Party is much more versatile Iliyah Jun 2014 #19

I agree DFW Jun 2014 #59

Long term progressive goals cannot be realized if the people we elect Maedhros Jun 2014 #68

Bingo. Chan790 Jun 2014 #73

No argument there. That is a given DFW Jun 2014 #81

The problem is that we elect candidates with a "D" next to their name Maedhros Jun 2014 #83

Oh, it's delivered results all right. Just not for us. n/t winter is coming Jun 2014 #102

I'm of the opinion that Liberals and Progressives must demand actual results, Maedhros Jun 2014 #105

+1 DCBob Jun 2014 #24

How much bend is allowed before you should stop calling yourself a Dem? Doctor_J Jun 2014 #31

Stupidest post I've read today. tabasco Jun 2014 #37

Which is a far-right plan MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #46

with all dues respect DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #56

the GOP did hold their ground Doctor_J Jun 2014 #88

and you think that would have worked DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #91

The Massachusetts Plan was so changed by the 85% Democratic legistature that Romney vetoed it and pampango Jun 2014 #101

Romney vetoed a few bits of it, but said himself that these bits were not a big deal. MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #103

Health *INSURANCE* is a for-profit product. We're trying to give people Health *CARE*. Romulox Jun 2014 #47

#2 agree, #1 not necessarily DFW Jun 2014 #60

The saddest example I have seen of this is a a liberal justifiably angry that a loved one died Dragonfli Jun 2014 #64

That was really a sad post Doctor_J Jun 2014 #82

I remember when Sicko came out, everyone here but a few trolls agreed the ICs were horrible Dragonfli Jun 2014 #86

I agree with your post and I am so sorry for your loss. nt Romulox Jun 2014 #116

The ACA is, for the most part, a political football. Maedhros Jun 2014 #72

Well, it's early Doctor_J Jun 2014 #49

We should be careful not to conflate COVERAGE with CARE. Maedhros Jun 2014 #69

Agreed, geez support for the ACA is to mean we aren't Democrats? treestar Jun 2014 #80

It depends... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #38

I'd say the polarization at DU is a direct reflectance of that of the nation. Maedhros Jun 2014 #74

Sort of... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #85

There is no "Far Left" in American politics. Maedhros Jun 2014 #106

+1 million, 1 minor adjustment. Phlem Jun 2014 #108

I was speaking of here on DU. Maedhros Jun 2014 #114

I was thinking of here on DU Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #115

Yes, but there are only a few of us here. Maedhros Jun 2014 #117

It's all about who proposes and enacts them. alarimer Jun 2014 #42

That's putting out some wild assumptions and some faux history DFW Jun 2014 #63

but the president is for all of those things, plus the Heritage Foundation insurance windfall Doctor_J Jun 2014 #87

President Obama is for death panels? mcar Jun 2014 #93

Clue on line 1 Doctor_J Jun 2014 #95

Still absurd mcar Jun 2014 #98

It is not paradoxical at all. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #3

I agree with what you say but need clarification on your definition of "revolution". rhett o rick Jun 2014 #22

A revolution is an overturning of the existing order. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #39

I agree. IMO we need to find sympathetic people with power. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #61

Yes, equating the Left with the Tea Party is a quite predictable slur and smear used in djean111 Jun 2014 #4

Used here at DU Doctor_J Jun 2014 #17

Yes, "stupid Lefties", right in this thread. djean111 Jun 2014 #23

Cui bono is precisely what should be asked when the ACA is characterized as msanthrope Jun 2014 #84

It was concocted by the Heritage Foundation (right wing), first pitched by Newt Gingrinch Doctor_J Jun 2014 #89

Oh my....I'll remember that as I pay my super cheap silver plan that is 90 msanthrope Jun 2014 #90

I have noticed that the Fan Club are rather myopic in their view Doctor_J Jun 2014 #94

I think I've posted in the BOG about 3 times. Maybe 4. Proceed, Doctor. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #96

the Third Way sycophants benefit from the status quo -- they are doing just fine. nt antigop Jun 2014 #111

Ditto Iliyah Jun 2014 #21

The OP is near single-issue "free trader". That's the origin of the smear. She'll also call Romulox Jun 2014 #27

Equating the far left with teabaggers is not only a slur: it's inaccurate DFW Jun 2014 #62

Are there enough stupid lefties to support that? Turbineguy Jun 2014 #5

The only purpose a left wing tea party would serve vi5 Jun 2014 #7

You forgot one thing in that final sentence. CrispyQ Jun 2014 #12

Exactly...... vi5 Jun 2014 #53

I think only very few of them will join us, or stay long if they do. DFW Jun 2014 #66

The solid left didn't show up, huh? Who then is this "solid left" you speak of? TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #77

I've posted this many times so I'll post it again: THE BASE SHOWED UP IN 2010! neverforget Jun 2014 #112

I thought the Coffee Party Shankapotomus Jun 2014 #8

I don't think they ever got much traction. CrispyQ Jun 2014 #11

The Latte Party. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #70

Pretty much agree to what those posters above have stated nolabels Jun 2014 #13

What a crap article. blackspade Jun 2014 #14

The Tea Party was a creation of the far right Big Media. There is no leftist media at all Doctor_J Jun 2014 #15

Indeed, what confuses me is all this talk about Hillary or Liz Warren, etc randys1 Jun 2014 #32

Tea Party: End the federal government. Old school Dems: Health care and education for all Doctor_J Jun 2014 #20

Oh noes! Logic and clarity!!!!!!! djean111 Jun 2014 #26

You're being dishonest again, Pampango. YOU are center/right poster, not "left wing" at all. nt Romulox Jun 2014 #28

Let's get this straight right now: ReRe Jun 2014 #36

+1 leftstreet Jun 2014 #43

And it will be full of very stupid people, tabasco Jun 2014 #40

That may be one reason we don't have a viable left fringe. gulliver Jun 2014 #48

Did you ever read "The World According to Garp?" DFW Jun 2014 #65

Yes. gulliver Jun 2014 #75

Oh yes - yours is the superior intellect. Maedhros Jun 2014 #76

A left wing version of the Tea baggers? Half-Century Man Jun 2014 #41

To take it a step further Gman Jun 2014 #51

I am all for an independent political formation on the left. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2014 #55

By George, I think you're onto something! Maedhros Jun 2014 #78

The Tea Party has billionaires to fund its insurgency starroute Jun 2014 #57

Exactly what I was going to post. intheflow Jun 2014 #113

You get what you're willing to settle for. Utopian Leftist Jun 2014 #92

Ugh. This reminds me of 'militant atheist". A bullshit term that is completely meaningless riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #97

Winning the thread. Phlem Jun 2014 #109

Every time the Tea Party comes to mind, Jamaal510 Jun 2014 #110