IF the Democrats turn their backs on Labor

[Horse with no Name]

are they still Democrats?

I mean--Labor has always been the backbone of this party. Without a backbone, you can't stand up for anything.

[fredamae]

1. No, they are Not Dems as defined in the

Democratic Wing of the Dem Party. They are nothing more than corporate shills. Period.
Just because one chooses a party to associate with does Not mean they Always meet those standards. Dems are not immune to the "asshole syndrome".
I suspect this is also realized by many in the general electorate along with unions as the "questionable Dems" are identified and "put on notice" that we are all watching their Votes. Vote watching is fun, it's where the "rubber hits the road" over empty "words" and surely "cuts the pretenders" out of the herd.

[RKP5637]

2. +1000 +++ n/t

[Bandit]

3. Where else is Labor to go?

They, like Liberals, are being taken for granted because (the alternative is so much worse). Do you want President Palin? That is what I keep hearing. Not how Labor's issues will be addressed or how Defense Spending will be reigned in, or how the very wealthy will begin to pay their fair share in taxes... No all we get is scare rhetoric {i]to keep us in our place. I am tired of being afraid of the alternative. Maybe Labor and Liberals will vote Republican...ya think? Democrats seem to be in the position that it doesn't matter how much they betray Democratic ideals, they can still depend upon those votes...

[reggie the dog]

5. Canada? Belieze? France?

[Horse with no Name]

8. I don't think that is going to fly in the next election

because Liberals, Labor and other progressives came out in droves and handed a mandate to the Democrats in 2008. That mandate was squandered to talks of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle which garnered enough support for bank and Wall Street bailouts, yet balked when Main Street needed help.

KNOWING the financial situation this country was in--every fucking dollar that went to Wall Street and other banksters should have been funded DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR on Main Street. The pigparty would NOT have left their benefactors without food in their trough.

We had the leverage. It was NOT used.

I am thinking that we have to stop funding the campaigns of these DINO's and start weeding out the ones we do have. I HATE getting blamed for what they republican wing of our party does or does not do.

It really is getting to the point that if we don't take a stand...we're going to lose our country.

[socialist_n_TN]

10. Labor and Libs will never vote Republican

at least not for another generation and not unless the Republican Party TOTALLY overturns it's platform.

Labor and libs however, MIGHT form ANOTHER party, a Progressive Labor Party. The timing would have to be right though.

Think of the NY Congressional race that we just saw, but with the Teabagger on steroids, electorally speaking. IF a Teabagger candidate was going to pull 15% or so from the Republican and the Dem was a DINO, then a Progressive Labor candidate could win an election, ESPECIALLY if he/she ran on an economic populist platform.

Even in less than ideal conditions though, IF Dems don't support labor and ACTIVELY oppose labor's interests, then a worker's party is in the future. It's inevitable.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Voting Republican to "Teach the Democrats a Lesson" Only Empowers the Republicans

…and drives the Democratic party further to the right. Every defeat leaves it weaker than before,
and the weaker the party becomes, the more it must compromise.

The Republicans really will destroy pretty much everything if they get in power.
They demonstrate that quite vividly in the states where they ARE in power and in the House.

[gkhouston]

15. No. Abandoning a traditional element of your base empowers the Republicans

and drives the party further to the right. I'm not buying this bullshit any more. If we vote for DINOs, they take that as an okay to be a DINO, and if we don't, we're allegedly helping the Republicans and thus forcing the Dems to move even further to the right.

They are choosing to be further to the right and as long as some fool follows them, they'll keep moving.

[Kolesar]

4. context? eom

[vi5]

6. If? turn (as opposed to turned)?

It's already been done.

Like on every other issues the Democratic party doesn't actually stand for anything. They simply wait around for the GOP to do something unpopular or stupid and then attempt to pounce on it (and weakly at that) for advantage.

Rather than saying loudly and proudly "This is who we are and this is what we believe in, and this is what we stand up for!!" they simply cower on the sidelines until they know it's safe and then they come out in favor of something.

[blindpig]

7. Whadda ya mean, if?

This has been going on for decades, we are witnessing the cresendo.

Labor has been snookered.

Don't let it happen again.

[NNN0LHI]

9. I was wondering the same thing when I attended a Democratic political rally

And the parking lot had more non-union made cars there than union made ones. As a retired union autoworker I tend to notice stuff like that.

True story.

Don

[ieoeja]

11. I occasionally return questionaires from the DNC.

I usually don't bother, but when I do respond to the question asking us to rank priorities among several choices, I always write in:

"Why is supporting Labor never a choice?"


I have never, ever seen support for Labor mentioned as a priority for the DNC.

[LetTimmySmoke]

12. Not according to labor leaders

Who have promised to withhold support if unions are thrown under the bus.

[TorchTheWitch]

14. IF? Damn, where in the world have you been?

Dems through Labor under the bus decades ago... since at least Reagan.

[AndyTiedye]

16. Who Abandoned Whom?

Some backbone. Far too many union members vote Republican far too often for them to qualify as our "base". We haven't got a base.

Unions in America are all but destroyed now, and they were destroyed mostly by Republicans who were elected with millions of union votes.
Why did so many union members vote for Walker? for Bush? for the other Bush or Reagan? for Nixon for that matter? Why?
Would any of them have been elected without votes of a substantial number of union members?