Wishing for Perfection, You Usually Get the Opposite, Like the GOP

I guess I'll never understand this quest for political perfection that so many liberals seem to think is so appealing.  The most imperfect Republican politicians in our history have been holding down the fort for the better part of 40 years; at what point do we figure out we're doing something wrong? If we're so pure of heart, righteous and virtuous, and that is what makes us worthy of winning elections, why do we keep losing? 

The answer is clear, if you're willing to listen to it. Right wing Republicans are willing to accept less than perfect from their point of view, while we most certainly are not.  

Let me re-state that. MOST liberals get it, and are willing to accept imperfection. A small but significant number of liberals refuse to accept anything less than perfection, despite the fact that perfect liberals have never had a majority in any national political body in our history. For all of the lionization of FDR, JFK and even LBJ by such progressives, none of those men could win an election these days, because these people would never encourage anyone to vote for them.  

If you've ever seen the classic film, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” then you'll remember the scene in which the owner of Swamp Castle describes how he built it. The first two castles sank into the swamp, of course, as castles built on swamps are wont to do. But the third one, by God, stayed up (so far), quite possibly because it was sitting on the first two sunken castles. 

Go ahead and laugh, because it's funny. But there's also a lesson there. If you want to build something that lasts (and if you call yourself a progressive, that is exactly what you're supposed to do), you can’t ignore the foundation upon which it’s built. And for about 40 years now, the right wing has built one hell of a swamp.

I understand idealism, and share the ideals of 99% of progressives. There is actually a place for ideals in the body politic, albeit in the background.  But if you share my desire to build a great progressive movement in this country, you must realize a couple of things. We can’t do it quickly; it takes years. We also can’t do it without paying attention to the foundation that is in place. I understand wanting something great. But since when has anyone in a democracy gotten anything just because they wanted it? If you are really progressive, and want to build a society on truly progressive values, you will do whatever you have to do, in order to get it.  Or, as my grandmother used to say, wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first. 

If you want something, but are not willing to do whatever is necessary to get it, it's difficult to justify labeling yourself "progressive." The root word is "progress." Think about it. 

Our side has been politically negligent for at least 40 years, and for 32 years, a neocon minority has had control of a large portion of the government, while progressives have marched and filled the Internet with as many opinions as they dared, while largely ignoring the process. They have chosen to stand outside the process and make demands, while they support and vote for people with no chance of winning, calling it “principled.” This same small but loud group of progressives also chooses to scream far louder at Democratic candidates than they do at Republicans, who should be natural nemeses. 

Let's be clear; we will never make progressive inroads, as long as there are enough Republicans in Congress to block any actual progress. Period.  That has to be our main goal first. After Democrats have a supermajority for a while, then we can work on perfecting the Democratic Party. Until then, even attempting to attain perfection can't even be on the table, because the current Republican Party won't allow it.

Of course, the most progressive "perfection" we can hope for is perhaps 10-20%. We'll never actually be looking at 80-100%, because that's how democracy works. Both sides make their case, and the result will always be just a little bit left or right of center.  And even that much will take a lot of hard work. The right wing took over a major political party, and they've held onto a disproportionate share of government for an entire generation, mostly because of a lack of a positive message that should have been coming from our side all along. 

That’s the foundation we have to work with, folks. A few decades ago, a relatively small but significant number of progressives decided to abandon the system we have, and opted to shout at it from outside, rather than move it from the inside. In the process, they allowed the right wing to create a really big swamp. Our only choice at this time is for progressives to band together and build a foundation on that swamp.  

There is no magic potion that will make the country progressive by sheer force of will. If you want to build a progressive nation, in which an Alan Grayson can win the First District of South Carolina over a Mark Sanford, it can be done. But it will take a lot of time, and a lot of work from inside the system. There are no shortcuts, and our ideals cannot be met by sheer force of will.  Nothing will change simply because you want it. You have to play politics the way the game is played. 

Consider this; the most progressive time in US history was the 1960s. That's because Democrats had a supermajority for the entire decade, and progressives were largely working from inside the party. We started to lose it in 1968, when the far left decided to go after Democrats at their convention, letting Richard Nixon win. Since then, with far left progressives on the outside shouting at the system, the left has been losing. People aren't voting for Republicans because they like them; they're staying home because they hate the right wing message, but there is no other message being propagated. Look at turnout. In the 1950s and 1960s, overall turnout in presidential years was 60%, while off-years were around 50%. Since the mid-1970s, turnout has been mostly around 50% in presidential years, and less than 40% in off-years. That we lose is not coincidence. 

We need to do a few things. All progressives need to rejoin the Democratic Party, to amplify our voice. We have to focus more on our message and less on the right wing. And we have to encourage everyone to vote, by giving them something to vote for. We will also need a lot of patience; it'll be a while. We  have to understand that the right wing has built a hell of a swamp in four decades. That much propaganda will take years to overcome. 

We cannot skip steps. Nothing else can happen until we push the right wing back to the fringes, where they belong. For the next 4-5 election cycles, and maybe more,  we have to vote for and support every Democrat we can, unless they're extremely repulsive, like a David Duke or a Lyndon LaRouche. When the right wingers start losing big, the GOP will clean house. That will cause a lot of Blue Dogs to re-join the Republican Party, which is bad for the short-term, but great for the long term. Meanwhile, the whole time, we're offering a positive message and attracting voters.

All progressives will also have to join the Democratic Party and work to change the politics from within. Political parties reflect their membership. If it seems as if the Democratic Party has moved to the right, well, that’s what happens when liberals leave the party. “If they want me back, they’ll have to earn my vote” is the single dumbest concept in democratic politics. That simply doesn't happen.

Politics isn't about issues, it's about doing whatever is necessary to effect policy and make laws that better people’s lives. If you’re not appealing to the most voters in a bid to win every election, you're not making progress. And like it or not, the right wing has built a hell of a large swamp in more than 40 years, and that is what we have to build on. 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The PCTC Blog


  1. This may sound like hyperbole, but this is literally expressing everything I have been expressing to those crazy Bernie Bros on quora for example. Hearing Obama and HRC called moderate Republicans just galls me to no end. Ideological purity is killing the GOP, why liberals want to do the same is beyond me. Thank you for expressing the thoughts of the rest of us progressives who actually think instead of preach.

  2. Very well said …and good article!

    I too, am proud to call Barack Obama my president!!!!!

  3. Pretty sure you’ve got your “latter” and “former” mixed up, there.

    Unless you really think “A world…in which Lenny Bruce could be targeted and harassed by police and the courts for using “bad” language in front of a crowd of adults who happily paid to hear him use it” is “more in line with the ideals set forth in our Constitution.”

  4. You missed the entire point of said meme. You can break down all day what a Superdelegate or corporate lobbyist has done, but it’s totally irrelevant. Many people from all walks of life and varying political beliefs have one thing in common, and that is that they want big money out of politics and therefore see corporate lobbyists and Superdelegates as a major problem. It’s really not that hard to figure out, but thanks for trying, anyway.

  5. ANOTHER great read by Mr Shook!

    You shake em up Mr Shook with your truth bombs on the self-proclaimed “Progressives” by

    1. identifying them.
    2. Pointing out the real history of the Dems
    3. Who really thought that POTUS Obama was a “Magic Negro”?

    It wasn’t African-Americans, Hispanics, etc!

    Keep it coming Mr Shook …keep it coming!

  6. Finally!

    Sanity …logic and a coherent conversation about the current state of the Democratic race for the Party nominee!

    Thank you!

  7. Thanks for this post …spot on!

    What’s the new name of the blog?

    I want to continue reading your post.

  8. Regarding Cruz ….you know what they say about dogs and children …they can spot a creep a mile away!

    And …they usually run FROM said creep!

  9. This is an awesome list!

    I’ve asked Republicans this very same question “Name 1 government program that a Republican President has put in place that the American people can say they are proud of and use?”

    Their answer is usually …”Aaaahhhhhhh???”

  10. Another clear problem is that to us Democratic Party members all of those things on your list are great accomplishments. The GOP members look at all of these as a means to hinder free market. They hate almost everyone of the items on your list.

  11. I support Sanders for President but I am not i sane. If Sanders does not win then I will support Hillary and will vote a straight Democratic Party ticket. People need to wake up and realize that this is serious. Way to serious to vote or not vote based upon emotions. This is an election and all that counts is who wins! The only way to win is to cast your vote for the Democratic Party Presidential representative and all Democratic Party members running for any office, in all levels of Government, city,county,state and Federal. All need to vote Democratic for the consequences if not voting is disastrous not only to the USA but the world!

  12. I really enjoyed this article!

    Thanks for putting to words what I’ve seen, learned and now know …Muslim individuals and communities throughout America condemn the perpetrators of these acts of terror …and are as horrified as any other American in our society.

    With that said, I must point out something that is so obvious that WE overlook the existence of it …

    white supremacist ideology is the foundation and source of American racism!

    Religion is important in our society … however …. far too many of US(American’s) view EVERYTHING through the prism of the sentence above!

    Thus the wall to wall coverage of the attacks in Brussels (European presumed white people) and hardly any regarding LaHore, Pakistan (presumed Brown people).

    These conversations shine a light on what is often the dark corners of our own thinking, assumptions and American racism!

  13. There are so many liberals I respect who really buy into the magical land of make believe thinking. From the Rise of Reagan, to the Clinton triangulation, to the Bush fiasco to the GOP’s 7 year blockade against Obama – many lefties pretend that they’re simply unwilling instruments and perpetual victims and not simply party to their on failings.

    Thinking that a perpetual protester and neighborhood cat lady like Jill Stein is a viable alternative in an election if Bernie isn’t the nominee, especially when GOP will nominate either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump (to quote Lindsey Graham in a moment of clarity, its the difference between being poisoned and being shot) shows a level of privilege and political naivete that borders on criminal.

  14. Great and accurate article …I’ve been saying the same things for a couple of months now!

    Sheese …maybe this will get through!

  15. Thanks for reading my article, Milt. I’m always honored when centrist Republicans attack my writing. You can read my response in Huffington Post – I’ll be sure to link it here for you when it’s published.

    1. I’m not a centrist and I have been a Democrat since I worked on the McGovern campaign in 1972. You just can’t deal with facts, can you?

  16. Bernie Sanders shtick is wearing thin by March 15th Hillary will have all but clinched the Democratic nomination.

  17. What annoys me about this “regional candidate who can not compete outside the South” line of contemptuous dismissal is that it sounds way too much like the “smack down da’wymyns’n’da’coloreds and we’ll never lose another election” line that the GOP has been pushing since the Dixiecrats defected after 1964 and the Civil Rights Act.

  18. Barack Obama turned Colorado,New Mexico,Virginia,Florida,North Carolina,Indiana and damn near turned Georgia Blue. Why because people of color.

  19. I would only add this …GET OUT AND VOTE for the
    Democrat …PERIOD!

    Sanders or Clinton …this Nation will not survive a GOP/Republican governance!

    Remember Bush/Cheney/GOP/Republican governance 2000-2008 and the destruction left in their wake?

    Today’s GOP/Republican governance in the Senate and Congress is the MOST obstructionist Party to a sitting President since Lincoln leading up to The Civil War.

    And in EVERY State that the GOP/Republican governance dominates …devastation …sheese …as I write this Republican governance is and has poisoned a US City of 100,000 American citizens and THAT for the past 2 years!

    Willful ignorance is not BLISSful …just plain stupid!

  20. Great essay. You spell out the hard truth on many matters. I had a similar experience today with a young woman (20’s) and I’m an old (50s) who wanted to school me on feminism, Bernie Sanders is a better feminist than Hillary Clinton and how I shouldn’t vote for her just because she and I share the same gender. In return she got an education about the war that women have waged on her behalf long before she was born and how many things she takes for granted these days, availability to contraceptives (not such a novel idea in the early 70’s), sexual harassment laws in the workplace, etc. that would not have happened if it weren’t for the women she was disparaging at the moment. These women have been pro-choice on many things, including her right to vote as she sees fit. There will be no “revolution” for the many reasons you state above. Some of the ideas are great if only I understood how they would come about besides “there will be a revolution”. I love their passion for democracy but wish it wasn’t at the exclusion of people who have been Democrats for many years and don’t necessarily feel the Bern.

  21. There is a fallacy at the core of this piece–it equates the right-wing critique of Hillary Clinton with Bernie Sanders’ critique. These are two vastly different issues. Sanders and his supporters generally respect Clinton (as he repeatedly asserts during debates)–his critique is that she offers establishment economics and establishment politics, while he is calling for more fundamental changes within the system. Right-wingers are not faulting Hillary for her establishment position.

    However, my larger problem in response to this post goes beyond this important difference between the right and Sanders’ alternatives to Hillary: the problem here is the use of the word “gullible” in association with what Sanders represents. While the article accuses Sanders’ followers of gullibly falling prey to right-wing attacks, the association of the term “gullible” with Sanders and his supporters subtly implies that the goals of economic equality and political reform beyond the incremental improvements called for by the moderate democrat establishment are naive. This is the sort of attitude that discourages people from pushing for true reform and asks them to “be practical” and settle for the status quo.

    Criticizing Sanders and his supporters for being “anti-Hillary” is missing the bigger picture here–what Sanders is calling for is major reform beyond the significance of any one candidate (including himself or Clinton). Sanders’ supports respect Hillary but are demanding systemic change in the system beyond what Clinton is calling for.

    Bernie Sanders’ strongest point from last night’s debate in New Hampshire was this: when voter turnout is high democrats win, whereas when voter turnout is low, republicans win. Sanders is exciting young and disenfranchised voters, Clinton is not. A Clinton nomination will most likely lead to a republican in the white house. I like and respect Hillary Clinton, but she is not going to mobilize voter turnout beyond moderate, middle-aged, med-to-high income democrats.

  22. I agree completely that the Clintons were the most investigated presidential couple in our history and nothing come to light. I also accept her apology about Iraq and her evolution on other issues like gay marriage. There is though one glaring, much more recent debacle of which she was at the center; the decision to intervene in Libya and overthrow Gaddafi. Though Gaddafi was a despot, like Saddam Hussein he kept order in that very volatile country and Libya was a functional state. It is now an anarchic failed state and Hillary shares much of the blame for that. She has not stepped back from the beliefs she held in supporting this failed intervention and would continue on this jingoistic course as President.

  23. I love centrist Democrats that get angry at young liberals who actually want to elect a candidate with ideals instead of power lust. All your saying is “don’t rightfully criticize Hillary Clinton for being the best liberal example of a bought and paid for politician.” People under fifty overwhelmingly support Bernie because he has the most experience governing, he wants the same kind of progressive politics that FDR wanted for America 80 years ago, and used his own base to run instead of donations from the same people who we are trying to tax and regulate. Hillary Clinton will be a fine president if we want to continue to be a extremely right leaning country that doesn’t invest it’s wealth into its people and who continues to let the wealthy tax the unwealthy to gain more. Also Bernie has the most legislative experience, is the candidate who has been the most significantly on message for his entire career and is one of the most respected congressmen and senators to ever serve. So yea, some people do like to point out that a vote for Hilary is a vote for the status quo and that Bernie Sanders supports liberal ideals BEFORE he get a poll back telling him he should. It’s not wrong to criticize a candidate that you do not prefer and tell people about the real best candidate based on young people’s opinions, progressive values and grass roots support. Have Hillary Clinton give back all the corporate money she collected and super pacs and let’s see if she could run. Oh yea, she couldn’t. Point made.

  24. I agree that Bernie Sanders can not accomplish any of his stated policies with the current political makeup of Congress. That is why if Bernie Sanders does win I will be voting at the same time for a full Democratic ticket. I hope that the rest of the democratic voters recognize that even FDR could not of passed one thing with out the Democratic majority that he enjoyed in Congress.
    I am also fully prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton and again a full Democratic Ticket with her.
    Thus the deciding factors are going to be if the voting public is willing to recognize that a Democratic President is needed as a political brake for the GOP Congress. Then the voting public need to recognize that just voting for the President is not enough. One must go out and vote for all Democratic party members that they may vote for at every level of government. Wise up voters and vote!

  25. Obama facts:

    Your beloved Obama didn’t fix the market crash of either the housing market or automobile crash… Bush did… He just helped Obama look good by putting the bailouts in place in fall of 2008 which was BEFORE Obama was inaugurated in 2009!

    Housing market insight….

    Bush didn’t twist The banks arms to over-extend loans to people…. That was the banks and lenders doing. You don’t offer people $300,000 loans when they make $40,000 a year. From 2003-2007 subprime loans went up 292%! Fall of 2006, subprime loans started to default.. And it spiraled down.

    September of 2008 the U.S. Treasury took over Freddie Mac under Bush NOT Obama..($700 billion bailout), prior to Obama’s inauguration…

    Home ownership even today is at a 20 year low… Under Obama…. Meaning 20% less Americans own homes that ever before!

    Auto insight: Bush approved the bailout bill in Dec of 2008 prior to Obama taking oath!

    In contrast over several years prior to 2008, auto lenders were tightening up loan options which reduced car sales significantly over the preceding years. After the bailout in 2009 due to the recession in 2008… GM is now owned (by majority by The U.S. Treasury Department), Chrysler was owned by some union and foreign car company, and FORD was the only one still owned and run by itself out of the three big companies needing bailouts!

    As for health insurance… No one was ever denied admittance to the hospital as the Good Samaritan Law was in place, prior to Obama care. Now under Obama’s dictator health care…, more people are paying higher insurance and have to be fined if they can’t afford to get their own insurance. But hey the poor are always free, the middle class are penalized.. insurance companies are ecstatic because they can monopolize the rates because they know you have to have insurance so they can now charge more and give you less! If you have an HMO that pays for most everything.. You do not have cream of the crop doctors and you have to wait longer than normal to get in to be seen by the Dr. Oh and realistically the majority of single 20 year olds who now have to pay $99 roughly a month for health care that normally never get sick.., could previously go to a walk in clinic pay $79 cash get meds for free at publix, if antibiotics, and save $800 a year BEFORE Obama care.

    Oh and unemployment… Let’s discuss that…

    Go to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics to get your facts…

    I’ll help you!


    Goto chart 11…long term unemployment… People unemployed 27 weeks or longer..in 2008-17% (end of Bush) …….now under Obama….climbed in 2009-22%…the 2010-46%…(up 24% from 2009) …then 2011-45% … Then 2012-42%…then 2013-37% then 2014-32.5%…then as of September 4, 2015 at 27.5%!!!! Still, today…10% above Bush and he has been in office since inauguration of 2009 (6.75 years to date).

    I could go on and on regarding many of the other topics… But seriously give credit to those who really initiate and develop every item you claim. Funny you didn’t give Bush credit on what I noted. If you research hard enough you may disappoint yourself when all is said and done. Americans need to wake up and learn to research their own representatives from their local reps to national reps. Crazy to believe your buddies or the media… and especially the Internet. If people want to know real answers let them research the ACTUAL bills! Look at court documents..find primary sources!!

    Stop believing the news!

    1. So, let’s get this straight. YOU are basically claiming that what I say isn’t true, while you lie like a rug throughout your response? How’s that work?

      1. Bush did not “fix the market crash.” That was Obama and the Democrats, with the stimulus bill, which received zero Republican votes.
      2. The Republican bailout plan did not include provisions for the bailed out companies to pay back the money.
      3. The US government started selling back GM shares in 2011 and sold back the last shares in 2013.
      4. Also, the bill making the money available was passed in late December 2008. The money was actually doled out, with appropriate conditions by Obama and the Democratic majority. The Republican minority tried to kill it.
      5. The home ownership rate is an irrelevant statistic, especially given the fact that its highest rate ended in millions of foreclosures because people were living in homes they couldn’t actually afford. And FYI, the home-ownership rate is at its lowest since 1967. The foreclosure rate, on the other hand, has been falling continuously since 2010.
      6. The claim that people were not denied admittance to a hospital without insurance is not only a lie, it’s beside the point. More people have insurance AND all of those with insurance no longer have to wonder if their insurance will cover them. Insurance is better and more people are covered. And it’s not at all “dictatorial.” You can choose not to carry health insurance, and the only penalty is 1% of your AGI, which is a lot less than even the most basic catastrophic plan.

      I could go on, but FFS, moron, you’re responding to an article written in 2013 with irrelevant figures from 2015. Unemployment peaked at 10% and it is now 5%, which Republicans used to call “full employment” back when Reagan was in office.

      You know what? If you’re going to lecture someone on regarding facts, you might use a few yourself.

  26. These so called Presidential Candidates do not need to know what they are talking about. All of them just spout off what would sound good and incite their base. Thus if any of them were elected there is no way that the Federal Government would be strengthened.

  27. I respect and admire Obama, and appreciate this superb list (which URL I will retain for future ref).

    Two comments:

    Could you implement local anchor links to the subgroupings for URL ref purposes?

    Again, in spite of my respect for Obama, I still lament that such was the shock wave from the Bush Jr. disaster, that it even took the steam out of any sense of accomplishment that Obama was elected; I daresay _both_ times. The Repubs could have run Jesus Christ, and the Dems a goddamn dog, and the dog would’ve won.

    Which is, indeed, very sad, as I also feel Obama has been one of precious few small-‘r’ republican Presidents in modern history.

  28. You only mean this is overrated as an issue, right? You don’t mean it should be dropped as a topic, entirely—what about in communities where minority votes are restricted by gerrymandering?

  29. I believe that these are the same people that once used the saying, “America Love It or Leave It”.
    Thus I propose that if they choose not to obey the LAWS of this country. They should apply their above statement to themselves.

  30. The trouble with Obama is that these are all facts and there is nothing emotive and dramatic and emotive – most people vote based on feelings, which are emotional. Hilary is factual and undramatic and may lose – Obama’s speech making is excellent and does appeal emotionally. It sucks but it’s politics – people don’t want to think – they are lazy – but they will respond emotionally; this happens the world over, for example Putin riding a Harley with a bunch of scruffy bikers, playing ice hockey and doing judo demonstrations. Hilary could lose because people like Trump (shriek!) and Bernie Sanders are more dramatic. There is a danger that Hilary could lose if she doesn’t add a bit of drama to it (no doubt she would be highly effective, but still we have to get her into office first and unfortunately everyone gets to vote) –globalcreativeconomy.com

  31. it is difficult to argue with people who are egocentric and narcissistic because they cant take criticism, and much of what political debate is about involves critique and debate. one can also not argue with people who are unable to think for themselves but some of them can be educated. there are active programs in certain parts of the US government that have a reputation for actively recruiting people who are incapable of high level critical thinking because they are pliable. so not doing anything to persuade the crazy and irrational people in the world to see reason could hold its dangers for the future, especially if they are willing to cheat to win elections. I don’t think it is wise for intelligent people to not attempt to educate those on the fringes of reality because their numbers and power can go strong enough eventually to turn oligarchy into dictatorship. and why is the Clinton/Lewinsky significant politically? in truth this kind of thing goes on all the time, especially in politics, and like many of the odd things touted by the right as being politically significant, are in reality irrelevant to politics. –www.globalcreativeconomy.com

  32. Milt,

    My experiences in the social media sphere around the Sanders campaign have apparently been the opposite of yours. What I have seen is better characterized by: 1) a Sanders supporter pointing out the salient differences between the two candidates (since your article does not address them, will list them for you: Sanders takes no corporate or Super Pac money for his campaigns/ Mrs. Clinton takes mostly from those sources – Sanders takes clear, consistent stands on the issues/ Mrs Clinton supports the TPP, then she won’t say, then she is against it, but hires a top TPP lobbyist to run her campaign,… – Sanders voted against the idiotic and criminal invasion of Iraq/ Mrs. Clinton voted for it, and then apologized – and on and on…) 2) Clinton supporter posts in response “FUCK OFF REPUG TROLL (actual transcript).

    It has calmed down a bit from those heady days, but there is still little substance posted in favor of Mrs. Clinton as a president, instead we are chastised for endangering the country with an inevitable Republican win…so please stop with the admonitions about “tearing a candidate down”.

    I notice you do not mention the primary source of aggravation on the part of Sanders supporters: that is the fact that Bernie has had a very difficult time getting new coverage, even when his campaign’s feats have been record setting and heroic. This includes In-The-Bag-for-Clinton outlets like MSNBC ( which just fired Ed Schultz, who among the entire slavish staff there has been very vocal in support of Sanders). Similarly, you failed to note that it was biased media coverage that destroyed Dean’s campaign – not any anger from his supporters – where the hell did you get that one?

    So – perhaps this really slick article would have some value if you had called for immediate and frequent debates between the two candidates – isn’t that really where the rubber will hit the road? …or are you content to let Mrs, Clinton continue her silent “listening tour”, and waiting for the big money to kick in and drown us all out?

    1. You could be the whiniest person I have read in a long time. So defensive and so easily proving the main premise of the article. If you want Sanders to win, stop your whining, put on your big boy pants and realize that Democrats have several good candidates. You can support Sanders without attacking Clinton, and the fact that you don’t think you can makes you immature and cloying – and if Sanders doesn’t win, people like you will be the reason.

      Get a grip. There are six months to go before the first primary; nothing is set in stone. But the only possible way a Republican can win is if our side tears down Democrats, which seems to be how Sanders supporters think he can win. Go ahead, genius; name the last non-Republican who won a race by trashing his own side. Or any side, for that matter.

      By the way, it’s JULY TWENTY FIFTEEN! “Immediate and frequent debates”? Are you shitting me? With almost a year and a half to go before the election? Who’s going to watch them, do you imagine? There will be debates when the time comes. There’s no need to “call for” them.

  33. Well your right about that.. Liberals and progressives are too busy defending the accusations of the conservative mind set even though we as well as most cons know they are lies or at least rampant exaggerations. I mean, trying to crucify Hillary Clinton for the deaths of FOUR Americans? Where does the logic of this come in? Fact is, all international g’ment employees know the dangers of their jobs and they would have been the last ones to point fingers at one individual. Many times (from session in ‘quiet’ rooms) even the republicans concluded that she wasn’t at fault yet it continues through air headed tea sippers who refuse to take ‘no fault’ as an answer because it doesn’t fit their criteria so they continue to spew, the sleeper public laps it up and the rest try to defend the truth but how can the truth be believed when congress, receiving input both from the sippers and their brood, keeps demanding something be done about this ONE issue and what is this ‘something’..? Simple, prison for Clinton and impeachment for Obama.. Two of the most wondrous actions that the ruling class desires so they go back for the 57th time (think Obamacare) spend millions more taxpayer dollars on an issue that will result in a conclusion that was decided 3,000 times earlier (an exaggeration) and that’s just one pet project taking up congress’ nap time hours and our tax money. So yes, I agree, the truth should always will out.. We should stop trying to convince them of something that they already know (but operate in gray areas) and start showing proof (there are dot gov advocates who only post what the minutes speak of) and of what the congress notes, not some donut mouth with wild hair or pant crapper with an uzi or even a doper with a big microphoned mouth spews for the sleepers to agree on.. Then in the end, wave despair off and go out and vote for who you think deserves our trust.

  34. Unions have been getting the short stick because they have often been found corrupt, as if they and they alone are the corrupter. Corruption is found where ever humans congregate or create, you just can’t avoid it because it’s the human who’s corrupt and not the institute. But above all, it can and does do more good than bad and if the watchers would do their jobs and address this human corruption by penalizing with prison terms (not monetary fines) then the corruption would always be at a minimum, not eliminated altogether because they are still operated by humans but to a level where those who corrupt can be singled out quickly. I too am (was) a union worker, I paid my dues and never griped because as I looked around at my non-union friends I knew they were getting wages and benefits that the employer offered (which in many cases were slightly over minimum) so bring it on, stop listening to the opposition because they are the enemy of unions, not advocates of the worker. I’m an independent liberal, there are policies that Dem libs do that I can’t see eye to eye with and there are con policies that sometimes make sense but both have a tendency to work in extremes and that’s no good for either but of the whole, the Dem extreme is, in my opinion, more for the mass than the group. Democratic capitalism is no longer in effect in this nation (except in word only) plutocracy and capitalism has now become our bed partners.. there is no longer competition because only a hand full of elites own everything and they compete simply for the excitement that they can arouse in the masses..

  35. Are you replying to a question or statement that I don’t recall asking? I don’t get it, what did I say or do wrong that you would have to clarify your position (to me) in a reply blog or am I reading the notice I received in my email wrong? I wholeheartedly agree with you on electing a democrat and if it’s Hillary Clinton I have no argument with it. I too do not see Elizabeth Warren running as she has no real experience in leading a country so her statement of refusing nomination is wisdom on her part BUT if Hillary nominates her as a running mate then this would indeed help her understand the presidential position for a later run. As far as Bernie Sanders goes, though he represents more progressive republicans, his platform does not correspond with the conservative clones’ who seem to be in charge at this time and he being nominated is less in odds than my winning a state lottery so there’s really no challenge there and because of it the GOP is assured a lose because no matter how much the liberals nag (even about Hillary) they do not want to give up those life lines that FDR and subsequent Dems have fought so hard to maintain (social security, health care, welfare, etc.) which the pubs either want to eliminate altogether or privatize into a capitalistic gain (for themselves). So I simply don’t know what I said to receive such a reply from you. You are spot on in what this nation needs just to maintain the happiness and harmony of the people of this country. Spewing dirt, innuendos.. rumors and trash is the conservative philosophy of continuing the ‘lesser of two evil’ scenario which they believe one day the tide will turn no matter that they want to gut these programs, make women a second class sex again, take away LGBT freedom of choice and put the blacks back into the 19th century.. They underestimate the changing ideals of this nation’s people and that will always be their downfall.. There are many bigots in this country but no more than there were during the civil war and they’re attempt to change the balance of the voters because they think everyone agrees with their mind set, then let them find out the hard way that as long as we can convince the liberal and independent voters to get out and make their message known, the bigots and the GOP who represent them will always come in second place.

Comments are closed.